Cost-effectiveness of antihypertensive treatment in patients 80 years of age or older in Switzerland: an analysis of the HYVET study from a Swiss perspective

Cost-Effectiveness of Antihypertensive Therapy in Patients Older Than 80 Years: Cohort Study and Markov Model

BACKGROUND

Blood pressure and antihypertensive treatment (AHT) generally increase with age, but there is uncertainty concerning the value of treatment at very advanced ages.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of AHT in people aged 80 years and older.

METHODS

A Markov model compared AHT with no blood pressure treatment for prevention of cardiovascular disease. Outcomes were new stroke, coronary heart disease, and diabetes, with falls included as a potential complication of AHT. Costs were evaluated from a health system perspective. Incidence, mortality, and costs of healthcare utilization were estimated from linked primary and secondary care electronic health records for 98 220 individuals aged 80 years and older. Clinical effectiveness estimates were from the Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

In the base case, AHT was associated with an additional 725 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and £4.3 million per 1000, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £5977 per QALY. The ICER was most sensitive to the cost of falls and relative risk reduction in stroke incidence. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis gave 95% uncertainty intervals: £5057 to £8398 per QALY in men and £4955 to £8218 per QALY in women. AHT for secondary prevention in participants with coronary heart disease gave an ICER of £9903 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

AHT is estimated to be cost-effective in individuals aged 80 years and older, even if health benefits are smaller or side effects costlier than in the base case. Benefits and harms for vulnerable subgroups require further evaluation.

Quality of health economic evaluations for the ACC/AHA stable ischemic heart disease practice guideline: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) recently published a rigorous framework to guide integration of economic data into clinical guidelines. We assessed the quality of economic evaluations in a major ACC/AHA clinical guidance report.

METHODS

We systematically identified cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of RCTs cited in the ACC/AHA 2012 Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients with Stable Ischemic Heart Disease. We extracted: (1) study identifiers; (2) parent RCT information; (3) economic analysis characteristics; and (4) study quality using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument (QHES).

RESULTS

Quality scores were categorized as high (≥75 points) or low (<75 points). Of 1,266 citations in the guideline, 219 were RCTs associated with 77 CEAs. Mean quality score was 81 (out of 100) and improved over time, though 29.9% of studies were low-quality. Cost-per-QALY was the most commonly reported primary outcome (39.0%). Low-quality studies were less likely to report study perspective, use appropriate time horizons, or address statistical and clinical uncertainty. Funding was overwhelmingly private (83%). A detailed methodological assessment of high-quality studies revealed domains of additional methodological issues not identified by the QHES.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evaluations of RCTs in the 2012 ACC/AHA ischemic heart disease guideline largely had high QHES scores but methodological issues existed among "high-quality" studies. Because the ACC/AHA has generally been more systematic in its integration of scientific evidence compared to other professional societies, it is likely that most societies will need to proceed more cautiously in their integration of economic evidence.

Novel approaches to incorporating pharmacoeconomic studies into phase III clinical trials for Alzheimer's disease

The societal and individual costs of Alzheimer's disease are significant, worldwide. As the world ages, these costs are increasing rapidly, while health systems face finite budgets. As a result, many regulators and payers will require or at least consider phase III cost-effectiveness data (in addition to safety and efficacy data) for drug approval and reimbursement, increasing the risks and costs of drug development. Incorporating pharmacoeconomic studies in phase III clinical trials for Alzheimer's disease presents a number of challenges. We propose several specific suggestions to improve the design of pharmacoeconomic studies in phase III clinical trials. We propose that acute episodes of care are key outcome measures for pharmacoeconomic studies. To improve the possibility of detecting a pharmacoeconomic impact in phase III, we suggest several strategies including; study designs for enrichment of pharmacoeconomic outcomes that include co-morbidity of patients; reducing variability of care that can affect pharmacoeconomic outcomes through standardized care management; employing administrative claims data to better capture meaningful pharmacoeconomic data; and extending clinical trials in open label follow-up periods in which pharmacoeconomic data are captured electronically by administrative claims. Specific aspects of power analysis for pharmacoeconomic studies are presented. The particular pharmacoeconomic challenges caused by the use of biomarkers in clinical trials, the increasing use of multinational studies, and the pharmacoeconomic challenges presented by biologicals in development for Alzheimer's disease are discussed. In summary, since we are entering an era in which pharmacoeconomic studies will be essential in drug development for supporting regulatory approval, payor reimbursement and integration of new therapies into clinical care, we must consider the design and incorporation of pharmacoeconomic studies in phase III clinical trials more seriously and more creatively.