Economic evaluation of ezetimibe treatment in combination with statin therapy in the United States

Combination Therapy of Ezetimibe and Rosuvastatin for Dyslipidemia: Current Insights

Cardiovascular disease is one of the leading causes of death around the world with various efforts being made to reduce risk in patients through preventive measures. One major method for prevention has been managing cholesterol, particularly low-density lipoprotein to decrease atherosclerotic plaque burden, potentially decreasing future cardiac complications. Statins have been the gold standard therapy for hypercholesterolemia treatment due to their ease of dosing, limited drug interactions, and favorable safety profile. Unfortunately, statin therapy alone is not always effective enough to adequately control a patient’s elevated lipid levels and combination therapy may be warranted. Ezetimibe is commonly added to regimens to help augment cholesterol lowering by inhibiting the absorption of cholesterol. The recent approval of a combination tablet of high-intensity rosuvastatin and ezetimibe has introduced a potentially more beneficial option for cholesterol management in addition to the only available combination of moderate intensity simvastatin and ezetimibe. We aimed to identify potential beneficial effects of ezetimibe by comparing its use in combination with high-intensity rosuvastatin compared to a statin therapy alone or in combination with moderate intensity simvastatin through a literature review. The current evidence indicated that combination therapy outperformed statin monotherapy in reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and patients were more likely to achieve their target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal level. This suggests rosuvastatin/ezetimibe combination holds a potential place in therapy for patients requiring a more aggressive reduction in cholesterol to help prevent atherosclerotic disease.

Cost-effectiveness of Ezetimibe plus statin lipid-lowering therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cost-utility studies

In addition to statin therapy, Ezetimibe, a non-statin lipid-modifying agent, is increasingly used to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk. Literature suggests the clinical effectiveness of Ezetimibe plus statin (EPS) therapy; however, primary evidence on its economic effectiveness is inconsistent. Hence, we pooled incremental net benefit to synthesise the cost-effectiveness of EPS therapy. We identified economic evaluation studies reporting outcomes of EPS therapy compared with other lipid-lowering therapeutic agents or placebo by searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts Cost-Effective Analysis registry. Using random-effects meta-analysis, we pooled Incremental Net Benefit (INB) in the US $ with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We used the modified economic evaluations bias checklist and GRADE quality assessment for quality appraisal. The pooled INB from twenty-one eligible studies showed that EPS therapy was significantly cost-effective compared to other lipid-lowering therapeutic agents or placebo. The pooled INB (95% CI) was $4,274 (621 to 7,927), but there was considerable heterogeneity (I² = 84.21). On subgroup analysis EPS therapy is significantly cost-effective in high-income countries [$4,356 (621 to 8,092)], for primary prevention [$4,814 (2,523 to 7,106)], and for payers’ perspective [$3,255 (571 to 5,939)], and from lifetime horizon [$4,571 (746 to 8,395)]. EPS therapy is cost-effective compared to other lipid-lowering therapeutic agents or placebo in high-income countries and for primary prevention. However, there is a dearth of evidence from lower-middle-income countries and the societal perspective.

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness of Non-Statin Lipid-Lowering Drugs for Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Although studies of non-statin lipid-lowering therapies (NSLLTs) have demonstrated cardiovascular benefits; whether these benefits provide good value has not been evaluated in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. A systematic review was performed to include studies on the cost-effectiveness of NSLLTs in T2DM patients with/without cardiovascular disease (CVD). Thirteen studies were included; ezetimibe (n=8), proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors (n=4), fenofibrate (n=2), nicotinic acid (n=1), extended-release niacin/laropiprant (ER- ERN/LRPT) (n=1), and icosapent ethyl (n=1). Six studies considered ezetimibe+statin to be a cost-effective compared to statins monotherapy, three studies suggested that PCSK9 inhibitors+statins were not cost-effective compared to statin+ezetimibe. Fenofibrate was a cost-effective either as monotherapy or combined with a statin compared to statin or fenofibrate monotherapy. Nicotinic acid and ER- ERN/LRPT compared to statin monotherapy were also cost-effective. Icosapent ethyl using the solid-state relay was cost-effective compared to standard care but not using the wholesale acquisition cost.

Fixed-dose combination of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe: treating hypercholesteremia according to cardiovascular risk

Introduction: Reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) with lipid-lowering therapies has been associated with a decrease in the frequency of cardiovascular events.Areas covered: A systematic search was conducted on PubMed (MEDLINE), using the MeSH terms [Rosuvastatin] + [Ezetimibe] + [Dyslipidemia] + [treatment]. Original data from clinical trials, prospective and retrospective studies and more useful reviews were selected.Expert opinion: While statins continue to be the cornerstone of dyslipidemia management, many patients do not attain LDL-C targets with high-intensity statins alone. Rosuvastatin is a high-intensity statin with a low risk of adverse effects and drug-drug interactions and proven benefits in the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Rosuvastatin and ezetimibe have complementary mechanisms of action that enhance their ability to reduce LDL-C levels. Various studies have shown that the combination of rosuvastatin 10-40 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg enables considerable reductions in LDL-C (up to 60-75%) with a good safety profile in a broad spectrum of patients with hypercholesterolemia, including those at high risk and those with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. In addition, a fixed-dose combination of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe may improve adherence to medication. In this review, the available evidence on the combination of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe is updated.

Novel Treatment Strategies for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness

BACKGROUND

New pharmacological therapies for the treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD) have emerged in recent years. The high rates of CVD and the need for long-term treatment to decrease risk factors makes cost-effectiveness crucial for their successful long-term implementation.

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed cost-effectiveness studies of novel pharmacological treatments (ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 [PCSK9] inhibitors, omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids [n-3 PUFAs], and the cardiovascular polypill) compared with standard care for the secondary prevention of CVD.

METHODS

We searched seven databases and the reference list of selected literature reviews for eligible cost-effective analyses (CEA) published between January 2009 and January 2020 that evaluated the above novel treatments versus standard care. Two independent reviewers performed the screening and evaluation in accordance with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement. Cost results were adapted to 2018 US dollars (US$) to facilitate comparisons between studies. Consideration of cost-effectiveness was based on the original study criteria.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies were included in this review, most of them adopting a healthcare perspective. Studies evaluating ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors and n-3 PUFAs assessed their addition to standard care compared with standard care alone, while studies analysing the polypill evaluated the replacement of multiple monotherapies for a fixed-dose combination. Ten studies reported on ezetimibe, fifteen evaluated PCSK9 inhibitors, five focused on n-3 PUFAs and seven on the polypill. From a healthcare perspective, ezetimibe was cost effective in 62.5% of the studies (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICERs] ranged from US$27,195 to US$204,140), n-3 PUFAs in 60% (ICERs from US$57,128 to US$139,082) and the cardiovascular polypill in 100% (ICERs from dominant to US$30,731) compared with standard care. Conversely, only 10% of the studies considered PCSK9 inhibitors cost effective compared with standard care from a healthcare perspective (ICERs ranged from US$231,119 to US$1,223,831). Additionally, ezetimibe was cost effective in 50% of the studies, PCSK9 inhibitors in 33% and the polypill in 50% of the studies adopting a societal perspective. The key model-related parameters predicting cost-effectiveness included drug cost, time horizon, and the baseline risk of cardiovascular events.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on current pricing and willingness-to-pay thresholds, most CEA studies considered ezetimibe, n-3 PUFAs and the polypill to be cost effective compared with standard care but not PCSK9 inhibitors for secondary prevention of CVD.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ezetimibe as the Add-on Treatment to Moderate-Dose Rosuvastatin versus High-Dose Rosuvastatin in the Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases in China: A Markov Model Analysis

BACKGROUND

For patients with inadequate control of cholesterol using moderate-dose statins in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVD), either doubling the dose of statins or adding ezetimibe should be considered. The cost-effectiveness of them is unknown in the Chinese context. The aim of this study is to compare the cost and effectiveness of the two regimens, and estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

METHODS

A Markov model of five health statuses were used to estimate long-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of the two treatment regimens from the healthcare perspective. The effectiveness data used to calculate the transition probability was based on a previously published randomized trial. The utility data was gathered from literature and the costs were gathered from the electronic medical record system of West China Hospital in Chinese Yuan (CNY) in 2017 price. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

The ICER for ezetimibe plus moderate-dose rosuvastatin was 47,102.99 CNY per QALY for 20 years simulation, which did not reach the threshold of per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of 59,660 CNY per QALY in 2017 in China. Non-CVD-related mortality and CVD-related mortality contributed most to the ICER.

CONCLUSION

Adding ezetimibe to the moderate-dose statin in secondary prevention for CVD is cost-effective, compared with the high-dose statin in the Chinese context whose low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) was not inadequately controlled by moderate-dose statin alone.