Cost-effectiveness of pravastatin in secondary prevention of coronary artery disease

Research trends in contemporary health economics: a scientometric analysis on collective content of specialty journals

INTRODUCTION

Health economics is a thriving sub-discipline of economics. Applied health economics research is considered essential in the health care sector and is used extensively by public policy makers. For scholars, it is important to understand the history and status of health economics-when it emerged, the rate of research output, trending topics, and its temporal evolution-to ensure clarity and direction when formulating research questions.

METHODS

Nearly 13,000 articles were analysed, which were found in the collective publications of the ten most specialised health economic journals. We explored this literature using patterns of term co-occurrence and document co-citation.

RESULTS

The research output in this field is growing exponentially. Five main research divisions were identified: (i) macroeconomic evaluation, (ii) microeconomic evaluation, (iii) measurement and valuation of outcomes, (iv) monitoring mechanisms (evaluation), and (v) guidance and appraisal. Document co-citation analysis revealed eighteen major research streams and identified variation in the magnitude of activities in each of the streams. A recent emergence of research activities in health economics was seen in the Medicaid Expansion stream. Established research streams that continue to show high levels of activity include Child Health, Health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and Cost-effectiveness. Conversely, Patient Preference, Health Care Expenditure and Economic Evaluation are now past their peak of activity in specialised health economic journals. Analysis also identified several streams that emerged in the past but are no longer active.

CONCLUSIONS

Health economics is a growing field, yet there is minimal evidence of creation of new research trends. Over the past 10 years, the average rate of annual increase in internationally collaborated publications is almost double that of domestic collaborations (8.4% vs 4.9%), but most of the top scholarly collaborations remain between six countries only.

The challenges of treating peripheral arterial disease

Today, peripheral arterial disease (PAD) patients need effective medical care for an extended period of their lifetime. Therefore, different treatment modalities have to be tied sequentially into an effective therapeutic chain. First, preventive measures have to be reinforced and risk factors tightly controlled. Furthermore, antiplatelet agents have to be applied in every PAD patient to reduce the risk of cardiac and cerebral ischemic events, restenosis or reocclusion after revascularization, and possibly also progression of the PAD itself. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors should be entertained in high-risk groups such as PAD patients with diabetes. In the claudicant, exercise therapy should be strongly encouraged and vasoactive drugs considered for those who are not good candidates for either exercise training or revascularization. In patients with disabling claudication or critical limb ischemia, revascularization procedures are highly effective. Especially for high-grade stenoses or short arterial occlusions, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) should be the method of fi rst choice followed by the best surgical procedure later on. To achieve good long-term effi cacy, a close follow-up including objective tests of both the arterial lesion and hemodynamic status, surveillance of secondary preventive measures and risk factor control is mandatory.

Cost-effectiveness of hormone therapy in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of 5 years of treatment with hormone therapy (HT) compared with no treatment for women with menopausal symptoms in the United States.

METHODS

A Markov cohort simulation model was used with tunnel techniques to assess the cost-effectiveness of HT in women aged 50 years, based on a societal perspective. Clinical data, where possible, used results taken from the Women Health Initiative (WHI). The model had a lifetime horizon with cycle lengths of 1 year and contained the following disease states: hip fracture, vertebral fracture, wrist fracture, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, coronary heart disease, stroke, and venous thromboembolic events. An intervention was modelled by its impact on the disease risks during and after stopping treatment. The model required data on clinical effects, risks, mortality rates, quality of life weights, and costs. The main outcome of the model was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained on HT compared with no treatment.

RESULTS

The results indicated that it was cost-effective to treat women with menopausal symptoms with HT in the United States. The severity of menopausal symptoms was the single most important determinant of cost-effectiveness, but HT remained cost-effective even where symptoms were mild or effects on symptom relief were small.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of women with menopausal symptoms with HT is cost-effective.

Cost effectiveness of hormone therapy in women at high risks of fracture in Sweden, the US and the UK--results based on the Women's Health Initiative randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the study was to assess the cost effectiveness of hormone therapy (HT) for postmenopausal women without menopausal symptoms at an increased risk of fracture in Sweden, the UK and the US.

METHODS

Using a state-transition model, the cost effectiveness of 50 year old women was assessed based on a societal perspective and the medical evidence found in the Women Health Initiative (WHI) trials. The model had a lifetime horizon divided into cycle lengths of 1 year and comprised the following disease states: hip fracture, vertebral fracture, wrist fracture, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, coronary heart disease, stroke and venous thromboembolic events. An intervention was modelled by its impact on the disease risks during and after the cessation of treatment. The model required data on clinical effects, risks, mortality rates, quality of life weights and costs valid for Sweden, the UK and the US. The main outcome of the model was cost per QALY gained of HT compared to no treatment.

RESULTS

The results indicated that HT compared to no treatment was cost-effective for most sub-groups of hysterectomised women, whereas for women with an intact uterus without a previous fracture, HT was commonly dominated by no treatment. Fracture risks were the single most important determinant of the cost effectiveness results.

CONCLUSIONS

HT is cost-effective in women with a hysterectomy irrespective of prior fracture status. In women with an intact uterus, opposed HT was cost-effective in those with a prior vertebral fracture, but cost-ineffective in women without a prior vertebral fracture. Even though HT is found cost-effective for a selection of osteoporotic women, it is unlikely to be considered for first-line therapy for osteoporosis because bisphosphonates have shown a similar reduction in fracture risks but without an increased risk of adverse events.

Life expectancy gains and cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter/defibrillators for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a devastating complication of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). The optimal strategy for the primary prevention of SCD in HCM remains controversial.

METHODS

Using a Markov model, we compared the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of 3 strategies for the primary prevention of SCD: implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD) insertion, amiodarone therapy, or no therapy. We modeled hypothetical cohorts of 45-year-old patients with HCM with no history of cardiac arrest but at significant risk of SCD (3%/y).

RESULTS

Over a lifetime, compared with no therapy, ICD therapy increased quality-adjusted survival by 4.7 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an additional cost of $142,800 ($30,000 per QALY), whereas amiodarone increased quality-adjusted survival by 2.8 QALYs at an additional cost of $104,900 ($37,300 per QALY). Compared with no therapy, ICD therapy would cost < $50,000 per QALY for patients (i) aged 25, with > or = 1 risk factors for SCD, and (ii) aged 45 or 65, with > or = 2 risk factors for SCD.

CONCLUSIONS

An ICD strategy is projected to yield the greatest increase in quality-adjusted life expectancy of the 3 treatment strategies evaluated. Combined consideration of age and the number of risk factors for SCD may allow more precise tailoring of ICD therapy to its expected benefits.

Economic evaluations of cholesterol-lowering drugs: a critical and systematic review

The wide availability of economic evaluations and their increasing importance for decision making emphasises the need for economic evaluations that are methodologically sound. The aim of this review was to provide users of economic evaluations of cholesterol-lowering drugs with an insight into the quality of these evaluations. By focusing on the most relevant studies, the gap between research and policy making may be narrowed. A systematic review was conducted. All Dutch and English publications on economic evaluations of cholesterol-lowering drugs were identified by searching PubMed, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database (CRD), the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), the Health Technology Assessment database (HTA) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). A search strategy was set up to identify the articles to be included. The quality of these articles was assessed using Drummond's checklists. The scoring was performed by at least two reviewers. When necessary, disagreement between these reviewers was decided upon in a consensus meeting. We calculated an average quality score for the included articles. The search identified 1390 articles, of which 23 were included. Most studies measured the costs per life-year gained. The overall score per study was disappointing and varied between 2.7 and 7.7, with an average of 5.5. Most studies scored high on the measurement of costs and consequences, whereas the establishment of effectiveness left room for improvement. Only two studies included a well performed incremental analysis. This study noted an increase of quality of economic evaluations over time, suggesting the value of cost-effectiveness studies for policy decisions increases over time. In general, piggy-back evaluations tended to score higher on quality and may therefore be more valuable in decision making.

A review of health care models for coronary heart disease interventions

This article reviews models for the treatment of coronary heart disease (CHD). Whereas most of the models described were developed to assess the cost effectiveness of different treatment strategies, other models have also been used to extrapolate clinical trials, for capacity and resource planning, or to predict the future population with heart disease. In this paper we investigate the use of modelling techniques in relation to different types of health intervention, and we discuss the assumptions and limitations of these approaches. Many of the models reviewed in this paper use decision tree models for acute or short term interventions, and Markov or state transition models for chronic or long term interventions. Discrete event simulation has, however, been used for more complex whole system models, and for modelling resource-constrained interventions and operational planning. Nearly all of the studies in our review used cohort-based models rather than population based models, and therefore few models could estimate the likely total costs and benefits for a population group. Most studies used de novo purpose built models consisting of only a small number of health states. Models of the whole disease system were less common. The model descriptions were often incomplete. We recommend that the reporting of model structure, assumptions and input parameters is more explicit, to reduce the risk of biased reporting and ensure greater confidence in the model results.

Effectiveness calculation in economic analysis: the case of statins for cardiovascular disease prevention

OBJECTIVES

This report aimed to evaluate the calculation of estimates of effectiveness in cost effectiveness analyses of statins for cardiovascular disease prevention.

METHODS

Methodological aspects were reviewed of seven primary studies (based on trial results) and 12 secondary modelling studies (extrapolated) on the cost effectiveness of statin treatment, published between 1995 and 2002. Estimates of life years gained were extracted and compared with estimates calculated using the Dutch male life table of 1996-2000.

RESULTS

Of the seven primary modelling analyses, six showed all the essential data. They estimated that 3 to 5.6 years (average 4.6 years) of statin treatment resulted in 0.15 to 0.41 years (average 0.3 years) saved over a lifetime time horizon. In contrast none of the 12 secondary modelling studies provided transparent results. They assumed lifelong treatment, leading to life table estimations of 2.4 and 2.0 (undiscounted) years saved for 40 and 60 year olds, with peak savings at around the mean age of death: 75-80 years. With 5% discounting, these effects reduced to 0.4 and 0.8 years respectively.

CONCLUSION

Reporting of essential data and assumptions on statin treatment was poor for secondary modelling analyses and satisfactory for primary modelling studies. Secondary modeling studies made assumptions on long term effectiveness that were hard to justify with the available evidence, and that led to the majority of life years saved at high ages. Further standardisation in economic analyses is important to guarantee transparency and reproducibility of results.

Cost effectiveness of statins in coronary heart disease

INTRODUCTION

Statin therapy reduces the rate of coronary heart disease, but high costs in combination with a large population eligible for treatment ask for priority setting. Although trials agree on the size of the benefit, economic analyses of statins report contradictory results. This article reviewed cost effectiveness analyses of statins and sought to synthesise cost effectiveness ratios for categories of risk of coronary heart disease and age.

METHODS

The review searched for studies comparing statins with no treatment for the prevention of either cardiovascular or coronary heart disease in men and presenting cost per years of life saved as outcome. Estimates were extracted, standardised for calendar year and currency, and stratified by categories of risk, age, and funding source

RESULTS

24 studies were included (from 50 retrieved), yielding 216 cost effectiveness ratios. Estimated ratios increase with decreasing risk. After stratification by risk, heterogeneity of ratios is large varying from savings to $59 000 per life year saved in the highest risk category and from 6500 dollars to 490,000 dollars in the lowest category. The pooled estimates show values of 21571 dollars per life year saved for a 10 year coronary heart disease risk of 20% and 16862 dollars per life year saved for 10 year risk of 30%.

CONCLUSION

Statin therapy is cost effective for high levels of risk, but inconsistencies exist at lower levels. Although the cost effectiveness of statins depends mainly on absolute risk, important heterogeneity remains after adjusting for absolute risk. Economic analyses need to increase their transparency to reduce their vulnerability to bias and increase their reproducibility.

Cost-effectiveness of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors in the treatment of dyslipidemia and prevention of CHD

The recent completion of several clinical trials of lipid-lowering therapy with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A inhibitors, or statins, was followed by an update in 2004 concerning the Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines issued by the National Cholesterol Education Program. Within this update, individuals considered at very high risk for coronary heart disease-related events were addressed, wherein the role of an aggressive, intensive lowering of lipid levels to new goals was presented. In achieving target cholesterol levels, the statins collectively represent first-line pharmacotherapeutic strategies, although each of the currently marketed agents differ in relative potency, dose, side effects and cost. As such, research concerning the pharmacoeconomics of lipid-lowering therapy may serve to augment clinical, evidence-based approaches to care. Furthermore, identifying and rectifying suboptimal care within healthcare systems may afford optimal outcomes amongst patients for resources consumed.

Pharmacoeconomic impact of non-compliance with statins

There are numerous studies examining the pharmacoeconomic impact of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin) therapy on healthcare costs and outcomes. A recently published review demonstrated that the cost-benefit of these agents depends primarily on the risk of developing a coronary event. That is, as the risk of a coronary event increases, the cost-effectiveness ratio decreases. The typical cost per life-year saved (LYS) ranged from USD 1800 to USD 40,000 in patients with pre-existing coronary artery disease (CAD) and from USD 15,000 to > USD 1 million per LYS in patients without pre-existing CAD. The literature is sparse on the pharmacoeconomics of medication non-compliance in patients taking statin medications. Data from two studies suggest that >75% compliance results in decreased coronary events such as myocardial infarction. However, retrospective database analyses indicate that the average compliance rate hovers around the 65% mark. Many of the studies discuss medication non-compliance as a factor, but do not independently analyse compliance pharmacoeconomically. We examined the pharmacoeconomic impact of non-compliance using published studies that contained pharmacoeconomic data and/or compliance data. In general, we used the placebo arm of these published studies as the surrogate marker for complete non-compliance. The results suggest that for almost 100% compliance versus initial non-compliance, the cost effectiveness of statin medications ranges from USD 4500 to over USD 250,000 per LYS depending on patient age, presence or absence of risk factors and whether the statin is being used for primary or secondary prevention. Alternate-day or weekly dosing studies were also used to examine the impact of compliance on cost and health outcomes. Alternate-day dosing represented 50% compliance and weekly dosing 29% compliance. Less than full compliance had the expected effect of worse health outcomes and lower drug costs. However, the studies were small and not designed as true pharmacoeconomic studies looking at the relationship between medication compliance and cost. The results of this review suggest that there needs to be further examination of the relationship between compliance with statins and cost effectiveness, and studies need to include compliance in their data collection and analysis.

A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of statins in the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia in the primary care setting in Spain

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is one of the leading causes of death and it has been shown that primary prevention with the HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin) lipid-lowering drugs can reduce cardiovascular events. Acquisition costs vary between statins and this may be an important consideration in the overall cost effectiveness (CE) of different options.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a CE study of the main statins used in Spain for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with high cholesterol levels [corrected]

STUDY DESIGN

The CE analysis was based on an open-label, prospective, naturalistic, randomised intervention study under usual care conditions in primary care settings in patients with high cholesterol levels (total cholesterol [TC] >240 mg/dL, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] >160 mg/dL) and one or more cardiovascular risk factors. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System; the year of costing was 2001.

PATIENTS

A total of 161 patients (49.7% males), mean age 65 +/- 10.3 years, without evidence of cardiovascular disease were included in the study. Of those, 82.1% were hypertensive, 37.1% had diabetes mellitus and 17.9% were smokers.

INTERVENTIONS

Forty-eight patients received oral atorvastatin 10 mg/day, 32 received fluvastatin 40 mg/day, 44 received simvastatin 20 mg/day and 37 patients received pravastatin 20 mg/day for 6 months.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

After 6 months, the therapeutic goals of LDL-C control, according to the recommendations of the Spanish Society of Arteriosclerosis--Consensus-2000, were reached in 62.5%, 43.8%, 45.5% and 40.5% of patients treated with atorvastatin, fluvastatin, simvastatin and pravastatin, respectively. The average CE ratio, expressed as the cost in euros (euro) per patient achieving the therapeutic goals, was euros 424.3 for atorvastatin, euros 503.5 for fluvastatin, euros 527.0 for simvastatin and euros 683.4 for pravastatin. The incremental CE ratios for atorvastatin versus fluvastatin and simvastatin were euros 238.9 and euros 149.5, respectively, per additional patient reaching therapeutic goals. Atorvastatin, fluvastatin and simvastatin all dominated pravastatin.

CONCLUSIONS

All the statins studied have been shown to be effective for reducing both TC and LDL-C levels. In this study, atorvastatin was the most efficient drug, with the best CE ratio (cost per patient reaching therapeutic goals). Atorvastatin was more effective and less costly than pravastatin, and when compared with fluvastatin or simvastatin the additional cost per additional patient achieving therapeutic goals was <euros 250.

Cost of a pharmacist-directed intervention to increase treatment of hypercholesterolemia

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost of a pharmacist-directed intervention that prompts physicians to treat hypercholesterolemia more aggressively in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD).

METHODS

Health care resource use and CHD outcomes were evaluated for 612 patients with CHD followed for 2 years after an index hospitalization for an ischemic event. After discharge, the physicians of 309 patients who had been admitted from January 1--March 31, 1999, were contacted by telephone and mail concerning lipid profiles and statin therapy. These patients were the intervention group. Controls were 303 patients admitted from October 1--December 31, 1998; their physicians were not contacted. Costs of the physician-prompting intervention, clinic visits, laboratory tests, statin drugs, and CHD outcomes were compared between these two patient groups.

RESULTS

The number of clinic visits, laboratory tests, and statins prescribed was significantly greater for the intervention group versus the controls. A significantly higher percentage of patients in the intervention group (55%) than in the control group (18%) achieved their National Cholesterol Education Program target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level and had significantly better CHD outcomes. The cost of the physician-prompting intervention (pharmacist salaries, postage, telephone calls) was $102,941. For patients in the intervention and control groups, respectively, the cost of statin therapy was $352,365 and $200,087, the cost of clinic visits and laboratory tests $48,097 and $27,367, and the cost of coronary heart disease outcomes, such as myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft, percutaneous transluminal and coronary angioplasty, $1,073,495 and $1,741,220. The total cost was $1,576,898 and $1,968,674, respectively, for patients in the intervention and control groups. Net savings was $1394/patient over the 2-year period.

CONCLUSION

A relatively simple physician-prompting intervention involving patients with CHD significantly improved the use of lipid testing and statin therapy. Improved use of statins was associated with better CHD outcomes. As a result, the physician-prompting intervention was associated with cost savings. This intervention should be implemented for patients with CHD discharged after hospitalization for an ischemic event.

Cost-effectiveness in Preventive Cardiology

Cardiovascular disease remains a serious medical problem, which can be associated with death and disability on one hand, and considerable resource utilization on the other. The primary driver for choice of therapy must remain clinical efficacy. Once efficacy is established, cost-effectiveness analysis has an important role. Resources are limited, and responsible choices must be made. The methods involved in cost-effectiveness analysis are complicated and data for the analysis are generally not fully optimal. Nonetheless, cost-effectiveness analysis offers the best method for helping society make rational medical decisions. Effective interventions, when reasonably priced, for the prevention of cardiovascular disease have generally proven to be cost-effective.

Clopidogrel versus aspirin for secondary prophylaxis of vascular events: a cost-effectiveness analysis

PURPOSE

Clopidogrel is more effective than aspirin in preventing recurrent vascular events, but concerns about its cost-effectiveness have limited its use. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel and aspirin as secondary prevention in patients with a prior myocardial infarction, a prior stroke, or peripheral arterial disease.

METHODS

We constructed Markov models assuming a societal perspective, and based analyses on the lifetime treatment of a 63-year-old patient facing event probabilities derived from the Clopidogrel versus Aspirin in Patients at Risk of Ischemic Events (CAPRIE) trial as the base case. Outcome measures included costs, life expectancy in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, and events averted.

RESULTS

In patients with peripheral arterial disease, clopidogrel increased life expectancy by 0.55 QALYs at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $25,100 per QALY, as compared with aspirin. In poststroke patients, clopidogrel increased life expectancy by 0.17 QALYs at a cost of $31,200 per QALY. Aspirin was both less expensive and more effective than clopidogrel in post-myocardial infarction patients. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, our evaluation for patients with peripheral vascular disease was robust. Evaluations of stroke and myocardial infarction patients were sensitive predominantly to the cost and efficacy of clopidogrel, with aspirin therapy more effective and less expensive in 153 of 1000 simulations (15.3%) in poststroke patients and clopidogrel more effective in 119 of 1000 simulations (11.9%) in the myocardial infarction sample.

CONCLUSION

Clopidogrel provides a substantial increase in quality-adjusted life expectancy at a cost that is within traditional societal limits for patients with either peripheral arterial disease or a recent stroke. Current evidence does not support increased efficacy with clopidogrel relative to aspirin in patients following myocardial infarction.

Cost effectiveness of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors in the management of coronary artery disease: the problem of under-treatment

HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors significantly reduce the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) events and CAD-related mortality in patients with and without established CAD. Consequently, HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors have a central role within recommendations for lipid-modifying therapy. However, despite these guidelines, only one-third to one-half of eligible patients receive lipid-lowering therapy and as few as one-third of these patients achieve recommended target serum levels of low density lipoprotein-cholesterol. The underuse of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors in eligible patients has important implications for mortality, morbidity and cost, given the enormous economic burden associated with CAD; direct healthcare costs, estimated at US $16-53 billion (2000 values) in the US and 1.6 billion pound (1996 values) in the UK alone, are largely driven by inpatient care. Hospitalization costs are reduced by treatment with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, particularly in high-risk groups such as patients with CAD and diabetes mellitus in whom net cost savings may be achieved. HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors are underused because of institutional factors and clinician and patient factors. Also, the vast number of patients eligible for treatment means that the use of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors is undoubtedly limited by budgetary considerations. Secondary prevention in CAD using HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors is certainly cost effective. Primary prevention with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors is also cost effective in many patients, depending upon CAD risk and drug dosage. As new, more powerful, HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors come to market, and the established HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors come off patent, the identification of the most cost-effective therapy becomes increasingly complex. Research in to the relative cost effectiveness of alternative HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, taking full account of the institutional, clinician and patient barriers to uptake should be undertaken to identify the most appropriate role for the new therapies.

Direct Medical Costs Attributable to Acute Myocardial Infarction and Ischemic Stroke in Cohorts with Atherosclerotic Conditions

BACKGROUND

The cost of acute ischemic events in persons with established atherosclerotic conditions is unknown.

METHODS

The direct medical costs attributable to secondary acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or ischemic stroke among persons with established atherosclerotic conditions were estimated from 1995-1998 data on 1,143 patients enrolled in US managed care plans.

RESULTS

The average 180-day costs attributable to secondary AMI or stroke were estimated as USD 19,056 in the AMI cohort having a private insurance (commercial; n = 344), USD 16,845 in the AMI cohort having government insurance (Medicare, age >/=65 years; n = 200), USD 10,267 for stroke commercial (n = 108), USD 16,280 for stroke Medicare (n = 113), USD 15,224 for peripheral arterial disease commercial (n = 170), and USD 15,182 for peripheral arterial disease Medicare (n = 208).

CONCLUSION

These estimates can be used to study the cost-effectiveness of interventions proven to reduce these secondary events.

Sex and time differences in the associations of non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol versus other lipid and lipoprotein factors in the prediction of cardiovascular death (The Rancho Bernardo Study)

Non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (total cholesterol [TC] minus HDL cholesterol) has been suggested as the preferred lipid fraction to predict cardiovascular disease. We compared the ability of lipids, lipoproteins, the ratio of total to HDL cholesterol (TC/HDL), and non-HDL cholesterol to predict fatal coronary heart disease (CHD) and cardiovascular disease in 1,386 women and 1,094 men (mean age 69 years). After 10 years, there were more deaths in men (n = 310) than women (n = 268), but the proportions of deaths attributed to CHD (23% and 25%, respectively) and cardiovascular disease (48% and 47%) were similar. In men, age-adjusted values for non-HDL cholesterol, TC/HDL ratio, and triglycerides each predicted a significantly increased risk of CHD and cardiovascular disease; none of these associations was independent of pack-years of smoking, systolic blood pressure, fasting plasma glucose, body mass index, and physical activity. In women, age-adjusted non-HDL cholesterol levels did not predict CHD or cardiovascular disease events before or after adjusting for these covariates and for estrogen replacement therapy. In women, only the ratio of TC to HDL cholesterol predicted CHD and cardiovascular disease deaths independent of estrogen use and other risk factors. Observed associations were sensitive to time, being evident in women at 3 and 5 years, and lost thereafter, but not apparent before 10 years in men. Thus, non-HDL cholesterol is not superior to individual lipids, lipoproteins, or their ratios in the prediction of cardiovascular death in older adults.

Testing strategies for diagnosing lupus anticoagulant: decision analysis

Clinicians commonly evaluate patients with thrombosis or a prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) for the presence of a lupus anticoagulant (LA). We evaluated strategies for detecting LA, in three clinical settings, with decision-modeling techniques. A decision tree was constructed with 12 strategies, using a combination of aPTT and dilute Russell viper venom times (dRVVT) with confirmatory tests, tissue thromboplastin time (TTI), platelet neutralization procedures, and mixing studies. Probabilities and costs of adverse events and test costs were obtained from the literature. Patient preference for each strategy was evaluated by assigning utilities to each outcome. On the basis of assay results in 90 healthy people and 77 patients, we calculated sensitivities and specificities for each strategy, with true positives defined as suggested by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. The least costly strategy for evaluation of patients with a prolonged aPTT, or with thrombosis, is not to test and to assume that LA is absent. For patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), it is least expensive not to test, although testing with TTI alone can also be considered an efficient strategy. The strategy of highest utility to patients with SLE is testing with TTI, followed by dRVVT. On the basis of these cost and utility results, clinicians' strategies for detecting LA may need modification. These strategies would then optimally be tested in clinical trials.

Statins: balancing benefits, efficacy and safety

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of death in the US. The risk of CHD is substantially increased in people with elevated levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). The 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (statins) are the most effective drug class for lowering LDL-C. Long-term prospective studies have shown that statin therapy significantly reduces the risk of CHD morbidity and mortality in patients without or with evidence of established CHD (primary and secondary prevention, respectively). In 1988, treatment guidelines were first issued by the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel I (NCEP-ATP I), then revised in 1993 (ATP II), to provide recommendations for the prevention and management of high cholesterol in adults. Despite these guidelines, recent national surveys have shown that effective therapies are being under-utilised and they often fail to achieve LDL-C goals established by NCEP-ATP II. The reasons appear to be multifactorial but include issues related to efficacy, safety, the potential for adverse drug reactions, failure to prescribe appropriate medication or dose and noncompliance with therapy. In the first major update of NCEP guidelines in almost a decade, the current ATP III recommendations have placed an increased number of Americans in the high-risk category, inviting even more aggressive therapy and escalating the challenge of reaching NCEP goals. New statins that may have even greater efficacy and less potential for drug interactions may help address some concerns associated with the failure to achieve treatment goals.

The limited incorporation of economic analyses in clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND

Because there is increasing concern that economic data are not used in the clinical guideline development process, our objective was to evaluate the extent to which economic analyses are incorporated in guideline development.

METHODS

We searched medline and HealthSTAR databases to identify English-language clinical practice guidelines (1996-1999) and economic analyses (1990-1998). Additional guidelines were obtained from The National Guidelines Clearinghouse Internet site available at http://www.guideline.gov. Eligible guidelines met the Institute of Medicine definition and addressed a topic included in an economic analysis. Eligible economic analyses assessed interventions addressed in a guideline and predated the guideline by 1 or more years. Economic analyses were defined as incorporated in guideline development if 1) the economic analysis or the results were mentioned in the text or 2) listed as a reference. The quality of economic analyses was assessed using a structured scoring system.

RESULTS

Using guidelines as the unit of analysis, 9 of 35 (26%) incorporated at least 1 economic analysis of above-average quality in the text and 11 of 35 (31%) incorporated at least 1 in the references. Using economic analyses as the unit of analysis, 63 economic analyses of above-average quality had opportunities for incorporation in 198 instances across the 35 guidelines. Economic analyses were incorporated in the text in 13 of 198 instances (7%) and in the references in 18 of 198 instances (9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Rigorous economic analyses may be infrequently incorporated in the development of clinical practice guidelines. A systematic approach to guideline development should be used to ensure the consideration of economic analyses so that recommendations from guidelines may impact both the quality of care and the efficient allocation of resources.

Clinically relevant differences between the statins: implications for therapeutic selection

Although the 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors, or statins, share a common lipid-lowering effect, there are differences within this class of drugs. The low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol-lowering efficacy, pharmacokinetic properties, drug-food interactions, and cost can vary widely, thus influencing the selection of a particular statin as a treatment option. The statins that produce the greatest percentage change in LDL cholesterol levels are atorvastatin and simvastatin. Atorvastatin and fluvastatin are least affected by alterations in renal function. Fewer pharmacokinetic drug interactions are likely to occur with pravastatin and fluvastatin, because they are not metabolized through the cytochrome P450 (3A4) system. The most cost-effective statins, based on cost per percentage change in LDL cholesterol levels, are fluvastatin, cerivastatin, and atorvastatin. Awareness of these differences may assist in the selection or substitution of an appropriate statin for a particular patient.

Cost-effectiveness of pravastatin therapy for survivors of myocardial infarction with average cholesterol levels

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of pravastatin therapy in survivors of myocardial infarction with average cholesterol levels.

METHODS

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis based on actual clinical, cost, and health-related quality-of-life data from the Cholesterol and Recurrent Events (CARE) trial. Survival and recurrent coronary heart disease events were modeled from trial data in Markov models, with the use of different assumptions regarding the long-term benefit of therapy.

RESULTS

Pravastatin therapy increased quality-adjusted life expectancy at an incremental cost of $16,000 to $32,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. In subgroup analyses, the cost-effectiveness of pravastatin therapy was more favorable for patients >60 years of age and for patients with pretreatment low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels >125 mg/dL. Results were sensitive to the cost of pravastatin and to assumptions about long-term survival benefits from pravastatin therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness of pravastatin therapy in survivors of myocardial infarction with average cholesterol levels compares favorably with other interventions.

[Cost-effectiveness of atorvastatin against simvastatin as hypolipemic treatment in hypercholesterolemic patients in primary care]

OBJECTIVE

To perform an economics evaluation of lipid-lowering therapy with atorvastatin and simvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia in primary care setting.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) has been carried out by means of an open, random, prospective, "real world" study, with hypercholesterolemic patients (total cholesterol [TC] > 240 mg/dl and cLDL > 160 mg/dl).

PATIENTS

A total of 92 patients were included (44.8% males), with a mean age of 64.9 +/- 9.4 years old (mean +/- standard deviation). 41.4% were diabetics, 62.1% hypertensives and 16.1% smokers.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were allocated to simvastatin 20 mg/day (44) and atorvastatin. 10 mg/day (48) for 6 months. ASSESSMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Both therapies reduced significantly cLDL, TC and triglycerides at the end of the study. Atorvastatin reduced lipids faster than simvastatin at 3 months (p < 0.05), but significant differences could not be observed at 6 months. Atorvastatin reduced cLDL levels by 21.5 +/- 13.2% and 23.8 +/- 13.9% at 3 and 6 months, respectively, versus 16.4 +/- 14.2% and 22.8 +/- 10.8% with simvastatin. By these reductions, 54.2% of patients treated with atorvastatin and 50.0% of those allocated to simvastatin reached therapeutic goals of cLDL control. Atorvastatin 10 mg was more cost-effective than simvastatin 20 mg; 95,406 versus 101,335 pts per patient reaching therapeutic goals, respectively, which means that simvastatin need an extra cost of 24,833 pts per patient reaching therapeutic goals to be as efficient as atorvastatin. Sensitivity analysis to control for uncertainty confirmed the results of cost-effectiveness analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Both statins were effective as lipid-lowering agents. However, atorvastatin 10 mg was more efficient than simvastatin 20 mg due to a better cost-effectiveness ratio.

Cost-effectiveness of statins

The efficacy of lipid-lowering with statins has become clear. Indirect estimations, and direct measurements from long-term randomized trials have also demonstrated cost-effectiveness, both in secondary and primary prevention of coronary heart disease. Targeting care efficiently to high-risk groups by calculating absolute risk is essential. However, it is clear that what would normally be very cost-effective interventions will put substantial strain on health care resources because of the common nature of coronary disease and risk factors.

Secondary prevention of hypercholesterolaemia: results of an audit conducted in South Wales

OBJECTIVE

To audit the standards of secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in postmyocardial infarction patients.

DESIGN

Follow up audit, one year after acute admission with myocardial infarction.

SETTING

University Hospital.

SUBJECTS

For the initial admission, 153 patients were audited, with 84 patients contacted one year later. Demographic data, treatment status, and cholesterol levels were analysed both on admission and at follow up.

INTERVENTIONS

Total cholesterol was checked at the audit time either in the hospital or in the doctor's surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Statin doses and cholesterol levels.

RESULTS

Ninety six per cent of patients had their lipid profile performed on admission. Eighty three per cent of the patients with total cholesterol >/= 5 mmol/l were discharged from the hospital on lipid lowering medication. Forty five per cent of the subjects who were followed up had cholesterol levels >/= 5 mmol/l at 1 year. There was a disproportionate use of low doses of statins (lower than those shown in effective trials: simvastatin 20 to 40 mg, pravastatin 40 mg) with a third of all patients on medication not achieving the targets at one year.

CONCLUSION

There was a major improvement in the proportion of patients started on treatment compared with figures reported by previous studies. However, the titration of the statin doses to achieve the targets is still unsatisfactory.

Cost-effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapies according to selected patient characteristics

BACKGROUND

The National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel II) recommends treatment guidelines based on cholesterol level and number of risk factors.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate how the cost-effectiveness ratios of cholesterol-lowering therapies vary according to different risk factors.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Published data.

TARGET POPULATION

Women and men 35 to 84 years of age with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels of 4.1 mmol/L or greater (> or =160 mg/dL), divided into 240 risk subgroups according to age, sex, and the presence or absence of four coronary heart disease risk factors (smoking status, blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level).

TIME HORIZON

30 years.

PERSPECTIVE

Societal.

INTERVENTIONS

Step I diet, statin therapy, and no preventive treatment for primary and secondary prevention.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for primary prevention with step I diet ranged from $1900 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained to $500000 per QALY depending on risk subgroup characteristics. Primary prevention with a statin compared with diet therapy was $54000 per QALY to $1400000 per QALY. Secondary prevention with a statin cost less than $50000 per QALY for all risk subgroups.

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

The inclusion of niacin as a primary prevention option resulted in much less favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for primary prevention with a statin (>$500000 per QALY).

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies varies significantly when adjusted for age, sex, and the presence or absence of additional risk factors. Primary prevention with a step I diet seems to be cost-effective for most risk subgroups but may not be cost-effective for otherwise healthy young women. Primary prevention with a statin may not be cost-effective for younger men and women with few risk factors, given the option of secondary prevention and of primary prevention in older age ranges. Secondary prevention with a statin seems to be cost-effective for all risk subgroups and is cost-saving in some high-risk subgroups.

Benefits of lipid-lowering agents in stroke and coronary heart disease: pharmacoeconomics

Coronary heart disease remains the leading cause of death in the United States. Although coronary heart disease and stroke entail very expensive therapies and extensive hospital utilization, the cost of preventive measures is also quite expensive. In this review, the factors that determine the cost-effectiveness of statin therapy for the primary and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease are discussed. A risk-based strategy for the selection of patients seems to provide cost-effective utilization of this potent treatment strategy. Appropriate patient selection should be accompanied by aggressive measures to improve utilization and compliance through improved physician and patient education.

Optimizing treatment of dyslipidemia in patients with coronary artery disease in the managed-care environment (the Rocky Mountain Kaiser Permanente experience)

Rocky Mountain Kaiser Permanente has taken aggressive steps to ensure optimal treatment of all modifiable cardiac risk factors, especially low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, in patients with coronary artery disease. In this article, we are presenting (1) the basic rationale for our approach, (2) the critical steps translating philosophy into practice, and (3) justification for all health plans to pursue a similar course. The continuum of physician-directed disease management systems that have evolved in our region-one administered by cardiology nurses in the perihospitalization period and the other by pharmacists in the long-term, outpatient setting-is then detailed. Although the relatively short duration that our comprehensive systems have been in place precludes any assessment of their impact on cardiac death, coronary artery disease events, or coronary artery disease procedure rates, the improvements in intermediate surrogate outcomes are promising. Virtually all surveyed patients participating in our management systems have been "very" or "extremely" satisfied with their experience. The LDL-cholesterol screening rate in the approximately 2,500 participants in the programs to date has reached 97%. Of these patients, 84% have LDL cholesterol <130 mg/dL and 48% <100 mg/dL, and only 15% of those few with LDL cholesterol >130 mg/dL (2.5% overall) are currently not receiving lipid-lowering therapy. The proportions of patients on aspirin/antiplatelet and beta-blocker therapy after myocardial infarction are 97% and 92%, respectively. The lipid-screening and treatment rates, especially, represent significant improvement from our own baseline, and compare favorably with outcomes from other practice settings. In conclusion, health maintenance organizations have tremendous incentive and the unique opportunity and ability to develop systems to better manage large numbers of individuals with coronary artery disease.

A concise review of the cost-effectiveness of coronary heart disease prevention

Coronary heart disease is one of the largest sources of morbidity, mortality, and health care expenditure in the United States. This article reviews a number of studies that estimate the cost per unit of health benefits associated with different primary and secondary prevention strategies for coronary heart disease. Although prevention does not provide a panacea for rising health care spending, many preventive strategies are cost-effective when compared to other common clinical interventions. Prevention should be incorporated into regular clinical practice.

Effectiveness of antihyperlipidemic drug management in clinical practice

Although randomized clinical trials have convincingly shown the efficacy of antihyperlipidemic drugs, both discontinuation of antihyperlipidemic drugs and failure to achieve goal lipid levels would be expected to attenuate the effect of these drugs on reducing the rates of hospitalization for coronary events. This study compares the rates of hospitalization and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels during and after discontinuation of antihyperlipidemic drug therapy. A retrospective cohort study was conducted among 2369 patients at 2 health maintenance organizations (HMOs) during the period 1988 to 1994. Rates of coronary heart disease (CHD)-related hospitalization and non-CHD-related hospitalization and the LDL-C levels between 14 and 180 days after the initiation or discontinuation of drug therapy were compared for periods of antihyperlipidemic drug use and nonuse. The rate ratio for CHD hospitalization during periods of antihyperlipidemic drug use compared with periods of nonuse was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.74 to 1.40), excluding the first 6 months after initiation or discontinuation and controlling for patient sex, age, history of CHD, hypertension, diabetes, and HMO site. By contrast, the adjusted rate ratio was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.80) for non-CHD hospitalization. The percentage of patients with a history of CHD who achieved LDL-C levels <130 mg/dL was 27% < or =6 months after initiation of antihyperlipidemic drug therapy compared with 18% during gaps in drug therapy (P = 0.04). This study failed to demonstrate the effectiveness of lipid-lowering therapy in reducing CHD hospitalizations in community settings, apparently because most recipients either discontinued therapy or failed to achieve the desired LDL-C reduction while receiving therapy. These results indicate the need for interventions to improve patient compliance and management of lipid disorders.

Cost effectiveness of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin) treatment related to the risk of coronary heart disease and cost of drug treatment

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the cost effectiveness of statin treatment in preventing coronary heart disease (CHD) and to examine the effect of the CHD risk level targeted and the cost of statins on the cost effectiveness of treatment.

DESIGN

Cohort life table method using data from outcome trials.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The cost per life year gained for lifelong statin treatment at annual CHD event risks of 4.5% (secondary prevention) and 3.0%, 2.0%, and 1.5% (all primary prevention), with the cost of statins varied from pound 100 to pound 800 per year.

RESULTS

The costs per life year gained according to annual CHD event risk were: for 4.5%, pound 5100; 3.0%, pound 8200; 2.0%, pound 10 700; and 1.5%, pound 12 500. Reducing the cost of statins increases cost effectiveness, and narrows the difference in cost effectiveness across the range of CHD event risks.

CONCLUSIONS

At current prices statin treatment for secondary prevention, and for primary prevention at a CHD event risk 3.0% per year, is as cost effective as many treatments in wide use. Primary prevention at lower CHD event risks (< 3.0% per year) is less cost effective and unlikely to be affordable at current prices and levels of health service funding. As the cost of statins falls, primary prevention at lower risk levels becomes more cost effective. However, the large volume of treatment needed will remain a major problem.

Lipid management in patients at moderate risk for coronary heart disease: insights from the Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study (AFCAPS/TexCAPS)

The results of AFCAPS/TexCAPS provide strong evidence for the benefits of primary prevention through lipid-regulating treatment across the spectrum of clinical coronary events that are often the first manifestations of atherosclerotic disease. These results reinforce current NCEP guidelines and demonstrate the need for the inclusion of HDL-C in clinical evaluations. The clear benefit observed in AFCAPS/TexCAPS reinforces the need to implement treatment in all individuals with average LDL-C and low HDL-C who may be at risk for CHD. According to estimates based on phase-2 NHANES III data (1991-1994), only 1.4 million (6.6%) of 21.1 million American adults eligible for cholesterol-lowering drug therapy by NCEP guidelines were receiving such therapy, including 14% of those eligible in secondary prevention and 4% of those eligible in primary prevention. Of diet- or drug-eligible adults, 65% received no therapy of any kind. Undertreatment of dyslipidemia continues to be a problem today. These statistics suggest that physicians must improve their efforts to reverse the toll of atherosclerotic disease through risk factor management.

Lowering LDL cholesterol: questions from recent meta-analyses and subset analyses of clinical trial DataIssues from the Interdisciplinary Council on Reducing the Risk for Coronary Heart Disease, ninth Council meeting

The benefit of cholesterol-lowering therapy in the prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) is well established. The secondary prevention Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) and the primary prevention West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study (WOSCOPS) demonstrated that lipid lowering with a statin can dramatically and cost-effectively reduce CHD morbidity and mortality with no increase in noncardiovascular mortality. The Cholesterol and Recurrent Events (CARE) trial extended benefit to CHD patients without high cholesterol. Post hoc analyses of data from these large trials are contributing to speculation, driven by subset analyses and meta-analyses, about whether cholesterol intervention should be target based, as current guidelines recommend. Whereas CARE data support the importance of baseline LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), with greatest clinical event risk reduction in the upper part of the LDL-C range in the trial, 4S found no difference in outcome according to baseline LDL-C in a quartile analysis, and WOSCOPS found no linear relation between decrease in LDL-C and decrease in relative risk for CHD. Furthermore, WOSCOPS showed no additional clinical benefit with LDL-C lowering beyond approximately 24%. Questions raised by such analyses require answers from prospective, hypothesis-based data, and at present there is no compelling argument for moving away from LDL-C targets. The hypothesis-based findings of 4S, CARE, and WOSCOPS support current clinical guidelines, and lowering LDL-C may reduce risk more substantially than might have been predicted.

Economic evaluation of cholesterol-related interventions in general practice. An appraisal of the evidence

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To investigate and evaluate published data on cost effectiveness of cholesterol lowering interventions, and how this information could be interpreted in a rational approach of cholesterol management in general practice.

DESIGN

A systematic review of the literature.

SETTING

No restriction on setting.

MATERIALS

Papers reporting on the cost effectiveness or cost utility of prevention of (recurrent) coronary heart disease by reduction of hypercholesterolaemia in adults.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty nine studies, most cost effectiveness analyses, were included. In 24 studies drug interventions only were analysed. Costs of screening to target cholesterol lowering interventions to persons with hypercholesterolaemia were considered in nine studies. Adjustments of the efficacy of the intervention for community effectiveness were described in seven studies. In four studies life years gained were adjusted for quality of life. Despite large variation in the outcomes, there is a constant tendency towards a less favourable cost effectiveness ratio for intervening in persons without coronary heart disease compared with persons with coronary heart disease and for women compared with men.

CONCLUSIONS

There is lack of data on cost effectiveness of cholesterol lowering interventions in the general practice setting. The cost effectiveness of cholesterol lowering in general practice deteriorates when all relevant costs are taken into account and when efficacy is corrected for community effectiveness. Cholesterol lowering intervention is more cost effective in men compared with women and in patients with coronary heart disease compared with persons without coronary heart disease. Considerations from cost effectiveness analyses should be incorporated into the development and implementation of national cholesterol guidelines for general practitioners. Standardisation of cost effectiveness studies is important for future economic evaluations.

[Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of pravastatin in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in patients with average cholesterol levels. An analysis for Germany based on the CARE study]

Those people who are to decide about health care systems are increasingly forced to identify unnecessary costs and achieve savings in health care. Especially for diseases with high prevalence like illnesses of the heart and the circulatory system preventive measures are very important. This economic analysis tries to clarify whether the secondary-preventive application of the HMG-CoA reductase-inhibitor pravastatin is, apart from the clinical benefit, economically justified in patients suffering from coronary heart disease with average cholesterol levels. In the case of this study, the underlying type of economic evaluation was an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. The outcome was defined as costs per life-year saved. This retrospective study is based on the results of the CARE (Cholesterol And Recurrent Events) study which has been published elsewhere [21]. When calculating costs we took into account the perspective of 3rd party payers (public health insurance) in Germany. The calculation of cost-effectiveness was carried out for the whole study population in CARE as well as for all patients aged 60 or more years in the CARE study. This was done because the different groups vary by the numbers of avoided myocardial infarctions, strokes and loss of life years. Netcosts for pravastatin therapy, i.e. drug costs for pravastatin minus costs for avoided events, were about 9.54 Mio DM (referring to 1,000 patients treated for a period of 5 years). Net-costs for patients aged 60 or more years were 8.18 Mio DM. The effectiveness was defined as the number of life years saved and amounted to 216 years of life saved (YOLS) in the overall study group. For patients aged 60 or more years we found that 358 years were saved. The costs per life years saved (i.e. the net-costs of pravastatin therapy divided through the number of life years saved) turned out to be 44,000 DM per person in the study group. For patients over 60 the costs were 23,000 DM. Lipid-lowering with pravastatin in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in Germany is cost-effective. In those patients aged 60 or more yeas the use of pravastatin is even more cost-effective than in all patients included in the CARE study.

A perspective on hyperlipidemia: concepts of management in the prevention of coronary artery disease

The clinical benefits of lowering elevated serum cholesterol for both primary and secondary prevention of coronary artery disease are now well established. Reduction in clinical events occurs early and appears to be related to stabilization of atherosclerotic plaque. Despite these salutary findings, lipid-lowering therapy, both nondrug and pharmacologic, is still markedly underutilized in patients and high-risk individuals in the asymptomatic population. Recent practical and uncomplicated guidelines present a rational strategy for selection of patients for low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol reduction and have the potential to yield major clinical benefits if properly implemented. Preventive cardiology measures should be applied by matching the intensity of the intervention to the hazard for clinical events. We support the current guidelines of the expert panels described in this article and propose several extensions for cholesterol lowering in selected, high-risk populations.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of invasive and noninvasive tests in high risk patients treated with amiodarone after acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate 1) the cost-effectiveness of amiodarone therapy in postinfarction patients; and 2) the influence of alternative diagnostic strategies (noninvasive only vs. noninvasive and electrophysiologic testing) on survival benefit and cost-effectiveness ratio of amiodarone therapy.

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of amiodarone therapy in postinfarction patients is still unknown, and no study has determined which diagnostic strategy should be used to maximize amiodarone survival benefit while improving its cost-effectiveness ratio.

METHODS

We designed a postinfarction scenario wherein heart rate variability analysis on 24-h Holter monitoring was used as a screening test for 2-year amiodarone therapy in a cohort of survivors (mean age 57 years) of a recent myocardial infarction. Three different therapeutic strategies were compared: 1) no amiodarone; 2) amiodarone in patients with depressed heart rate variability; 3) amiodarone in patients with depressed heart rate variability and a positive programmed ventricular stimulation. Total variable costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy during a 20-year period were predicted with use of a Markov simulation model. Costs and charges were calculated with reference to an Italian and American hospital.

RESULTS

Amiodarone therapy in patients with depressed heart rate variability and a positive programmed ventricular stimulation was dominated by a blend of the two alternatives. Compared with the no-treatment strategy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of amiodarone therapy in patients with depressed heart rate variability was $10,633 and $39,422 per gained quality-adjusted life-year using Italian costs and American charges, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with a noninterventional option, amiodarone prescription in all patients with depressed heart rate variability seems to be a more appropriate approach than the alternative based on the combined use of heart rate variability and electrophysiologic study.

Cost-effectiveness of pravastatin in secondary prevention of coronary heart disease: comparison between Belgium and the United States of a projected risk model

Methodological differences and variations in health care regulations among countries often preclude direct comparisons of cost-effectiveness studies. A projected risk model was applied, designed to determine the economic value in the United States of pravastatin in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD), to Belgium using local health care costs. A Markov process was used to model the effectiveness of treatment for 3 years with pravastatin versus placebo in 1000 male CHD patients aged 60 years and clinically similar to those in the pravastatin limitation of atherosclerosis in the coronary arteries (PLAC I) and pravastatin, lipids and atherosclerosis in the carotid arteries (PLAC II) studies. The PLAC I and II trials have shown that pravastatin treatment for 3 years at a weighted mean dose of 36.64 mg daily significantly reduced the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction in patients with CHD. Framingham data were used to project the risk of mortality 10 years post-myocardial infarction. The incremental cost per life year gained (LYG), after discounting costs and benefits by 5% annually, in the setting of Belgian health care regulations, was Belgian francs (BEF) 720794 (US$ 24359) for CHD patients with one additional risk factor; BEF 526464 (US$ 17792) for those with two additional risk factors; and BEF 392765 (US$ 13274) for those with three or more additional risk factors. The cost per LYG in Belgium appeared to be more sensitive to drug acquisition cost than to costs of medical interventions. The cost-effectiveness ratios of pravastatin monotherapy for 3 years in secondary prevention of CHD, obtained with the same projected risk model, are from 86 to 92% higher in Belgium than in the United States, due to differences in medical patterns of practice and in intervention costs.

Cholesterol management in theory and practice

The preponderance of evidence confirms the importance of aggressive lipid modification in patients at risk for coronary heart disease (CHD). However, data suggest that this information is underimplemented in the clinical setting, even in patients with existing CHD, in whom the greatest benefit of such treatment has been shown. The fact that many practitioners do not pursue a proven treatment strategy in patients who qualify must be redressed through education and reinforcement of existing recommendations. In the present review, the current clinical and mechanistic understanding of the benefit of aggressive lipid management is summarized, with a focus on the clinical implications of recent findings. These include growing public awareness of cholesterol as a modifiable CHD risk factor, recommendations for earlier and more aggressive intervention in patients with existing disease, and discussion of the cost-effectiveness of lipid-regulating therapy. Despite the secular trend of declining CHD morbidity and mortality rates in recent years, CHD remains the leading cause of death in both men and women in the United States. It is imperative to prevent any reduction in public focus on primary and secondary prevention.

Implementing quality assurance programs in multigroup practices for treating hypercholesterolemia in patients with coronary artery disease

Healthcare reform is driving the development of specialty physician practices into larger regional and national physician networks. These networks arise from the federation of > or =2 practices that negotiate with managed-care organizations for contracts. Developing cardiovascular networks and establishing and implementing lipid management quality assurance programs into the network are presented in this article. Goals of the lipid management program include enhancing the identification, diagnosis, education, and comprehensive treatment of patients with cardiovascular disease. Utilizing an integrated, coordinated, multidisciplinary approach to lipid management allows the cardiology network to improve patients' quality of life, reduce long-term costs, and gain a competitive advantage for successful contracting. A network lipid management program involves targeting eligible patients and treating them to a targeted level for low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol where possible. Among cardiologists, there is a consensus that achieving an LDL cholesterol of < 100 mg/dL for patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease is desirable. Secondary lipid management program goals include: (1) collecting, storing, and analyzing patient demographics; (2) implementing programs involving lifestyle modification, smoking cessation, weight control; and (3) measuring clinical and economic outcomes. Convergence of several driving forces in managing hypercholesterolemia provides cardiologists with the ability to improve the process. These forces include: market-consolidated delivery systems, established lipid management guidelines, and employer-initiated policies requiring higher quality care within managed-care organizations. Methods to achieve enhanced treatment effectiveness, patient satisfaction, and control costs are discussed. Utilizing multidisciplinary teams including nurse case managers, clinical pharmacists, dietitians, and physician assistants to achieve lipid level goals and for nutritional counseling is desirable. Developing disease state management programs, treatment algorithms, databases with analytic reports, and process improvement across the network is of paramount importance for future progress and success.

Strategies for the management of hypercholesterolaemia: a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness literature

OBJECTIVE

To review research addressing the management of cholesterol in the prevention of coronary heart disease in order to assess the cost-effectiveness of such interventions.

METHODS

A systematic review of economic evaluations identified through searches of MEDLINE and the Social Sciences Citation Index revealed 38 studies addressing the cost-effectiveness of cholesterol management. They were distinguished according to screening approaches, dietary advice and drug treatment. Most studies were not associated directly with clinical trial results, but adopted economic modelling approaches.

RESULTS

Whilst there is general agreement among the majority of analyses, studies of cholesterol management concerned with screening strategies were extremely sensitive to changes in their assumptions; so much so that only a limited emphasis may be placed on specific cost-effectiveness ratios and the conclusions drawn from them. All studies considered direct costs, though many were limited to drug costs. The cost-effectiveness of primary prevention by cholesterol-lowering drugs is highly variable, depending on age at initiation of treatment and cardiovascular risk profile. Pharmacological intervention is least cost-effective in the young and the elderly. The cost-effectiveness of cholesterol-reducing agents improves when they are targeted at those at high risk. HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors are generally more effective and more cost-effective at reducing cholesterol-related coronary events than other medications.

CONCLUSION

The methods and economic data upon which these studies are based need to be improved if robust policy conclusions are to be formulated.

Mild liver enzyme abnormalities: eliminating hemochromatosis as cause

Chronic mild liver enzyme abnormalities are attributable to hereditary hemochromatosis in at least 3% of cases. Hemochromatosis formerly was diagnosed late with diabetes and hepatic and cardiac failure. Only recently have the autosomal recessive inheritance and subtle early presentations been understood. However, patients still wait many years and see many physicians before receiving a correct diagnosis. Increased serum transferrin saturation is currently the best test for detection of those likely to accumulate iron. Serum ferritin identifies those requiring treatment. When liver biopsy (controversial in asymptomatic individuals) is indicated, chemical measurement of liver iron content is helpful and therapeutic phlebotomy is the only effective treatment. Caucasian-type hemochromatosis (prevalence of 0.005) is associated with genetic abnormalities in HLA-H but also occurs in other ethnic groups. Those of African descent may have a different but also heritable iron-loading disease. Caucasian-type and to a lesser extent African iron loading are detectable early by laboratory testing. Early treatment restores normal expectations of length and quality of life in the Caucasian disease. Long-term treatment data are not yet available in African iron loading. Laboratory-initiated screening programs using unsaturated iron-binding capacity can eliminate symptomatic hemochromatosis.