From 4S to IDEAL: the health economics of the statin trials

Evidence for changing lipid management strategy to focus on non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) has been recommended as the primary treatment target on lipid management in coronary heart disease (CHD) patients for past several decades. However, even by aggressive LDL-C lowering treatment, patients still present a significant residual risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) contained all the atherogenic lipoproteins, such as chylomicron, very-low density lipoprotein (VLDL), LDL, intermediate density lipoprotein (IDL). Many prospective observation studies have found that non-HDL-C was better than LDL-C in predicting risks of MACE. Since non-HDL-C appears to be superior for risk prediction beyond LDL-C, current guidelines have emphasize the importance of non-HDL-C for guiding cardiovascular prevention strategies and have flagged non-HDL-C as a co-primary therapeutic target. The goals of non-HDL-C were recommended as 30 mg/dl higher than the corresponding LDL-C goals, but the value seemed inappropriate. This review provide evidence for changing lipid management strategy to focus on non-HDL-C and appropriate values for adding to LDL-C goals would be proposed.

Cardiovascular and economic outcomes after initiation of atorvastatin versus simvastatin in an employed population stratified by cardiovascular risk

The relative effects of atorvastatin and simvastatin among higher- and lower-risk patients are not well characterized. This study compared cardiovascular (CV) risk and direct and indirect costs among higher- and lower-risk employees initiating atorvastatin vs. simvastatin. Using a large employer claims database (1999-2006), employees were stratified as 1) high-risk employees with prior CV events, diabetes, or renal disorders; and 2) low- to intermediate-risk employees without these conditions. Propensity score matching was used, and 2-year outcomes were compared between matched cohorts. Indirect costs included disability payments and medically related absenteeism. Drug costs were imputed with recent prices to account for availability of generic simvastatin. Among 4167 matched pairs of high-risk employees, atorvastatin use was associated with a numerically lower risk of CV events (17.6 versus 18.4%, P = 0.37), higher direct medical costs ($17,590 versus $17,377, P = 0.002), numerically lower indirect costs ($4830 versus $4989, P = 0.29), and higher total costs by $54 ($22,420 versus $22,366, P = 0.034). The majority of high-risk employees (62%) received low initial statin doses (atorvastatin = 10 mg or simvastatin = 20 mg). Among 9326 matched pairs of low- to intermediate-risk employees, atorvastatin use was associated with a lower risk of CV events (3.1% versus 3.7%, P = 0.030), lower direct medical costs ($8400 versus $8436, P < 0.001), numerically lower indirect costs ($2781 versus $2807; P = 0.12), and lower total costs by $61 ($11,181 versus $11,243, P < 0.001). These results suggest that formulary policies reserving atorvastatin for higher-risk patients may not be cost-saving from the employer perspective.

Cost-effectiveness of statins revisited: lessons learned about the value of innovation

BACKGROUND

The economic evaluation of statins has undergone a development from risk-factor-based models to modeling of hard end points in clinical trials with a shift back to risk-factor models after increased confidence in their predictive power has now been established. At this point, we can look back on the historical economic data on simvastatin to see what lesson regarding reimbursement we can learn.

METHODS

Historical data on the usage and sales of simvastatin in Sweden were combined with published epidemiological and clinical data to calculate the social value of simvastatin to the present day and to make projection until projected until 2018. The distribution of the social surplus was calculated by taking the costs born by society and the producer of the drug into consideration.

RESULTS

The cost of simvastatin fell drastically following patent expiration, although the number of treated patients has continued to grow. Presently, the use of simvastatin is close to cost neutrality taking direct and indirect cost savings from reduced morbidity into account. However, the major part of the social surplus generated comes from the value of improved quality-adjusted survival. Of the social surplus generated, the producer appropriated 20-43% of the value during the on-patent period, a figure dropping to 1% following loss of exclusivity. The total producer surplus between 1987 and 2018 is 2-5% of the total social surplus.

CONCLUSION

Only a small part of the surplus value generated was appropriated by the producer. A regulatory and reimbursement approach that favors early market access and coverage with evidence development as opposed to long-term trials as a pre-requisite for launch is more attractive from both a company and social perspective.

Prescribing high-dose lipid-lowering therapy early to avoid subsequent cardiovascular events: is this a cost-effective strategy?

BACKGROUND

While evidence shows high-dose statins reduce cardiovascular events compared with moderate doses in individuals with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), many primary care trusts (PCT) advocate the use of generic simvastatin 40 mg/day for these patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data from 28 RCTs were synthesized using a mixed treatment comparison model. A Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatments taking into account adherence and the likely reduction in cost for atorvastatin when the patent expires. There is a clear dose-response: rosuvastatin 40 mg/day produces the greatest reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (56%) followed by atorvastatin 80 mg/day (52%), and simvastatin 40 mg/day (37%). Using a threshold of £20,000 per QALY, if adherence levels in general practice are similar to those observed in RCTs, all three higher dose statins would be considered cost-effective compared to simvastatin 40 mg/day. Using the net benefits of the treatments, rosuvastatin 40 mg/day is estimated to be the most cost-effective alternative. If the cost of atorvastatin reduces in line with that observed for simvastatin, atorvastatin 80 mg/day is estimated to be the most cost-effective alternative.

CONCLUSION

Our analyses show that current PCT policies intended to minimize primary care drug acquisition costs result in suboptimal care.

Four out of ten patients are not taking statins regularly during the 12 months after an acute coronary event

BACKGROUND

In New Zealand, a setting in which national guidelines recommend statins for all patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and cost barriers are low, patterns of use of these drugs are unknown. We investigated dispensing rates after hospital discharge for acute CHD event.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

Drug dispensing, hospital diagnosis, and mortality records were linked by unique identifier for all New Zealanders aged 35-84 years after discharge following acute CHD event in 2007. We defined the statin dispensing ratio (SDR) as the proportion of days that 15,506 patients aged 35-84 years were dispensed such agents during the 12 months post discharge. An SDR ≥0.8 (80% or more days covered) was considered optimal.

RESULTS

Overall, 59% of the cohort had an SDR ≥0.8. Of patients dispensed statins in the 3 months before admission (n = 5506), almost all (99%; 5466) continued treatment during follow up and 82% had an SDR ≥0.8. In contrast, for patients not dispensed statins before admission (n = 8014), only two-thirds started statins during follow up and only 44% had an SDR ≥0.8. Of all patients with low statin dispensing (SDR <0.8), about one-quarter were not dispensed any lipid-lowering drugs, one-quarter received alternative lipid-lowering drugs, one-quarter stopped statins, and the remaining quarter were intermittent statin users.

CONCLUSION

In a setting with few barriers to statin treatment, about 40% of patients had suboptimal statin dispensing during the year after hospital treatment for CHD. This study has identified four significant categories of suboptimal adherence that could inform quality improvement programmes.