Projected cost-effectiveness of ezetimibe/simvastatin compared with doubling the statin dose in the United Kingdom: findings from the INFORCE study

Cost-Effectiveness of Lipid-Lowering Therapies for Cardiovascular Prevention in Germany

PURPOSE

Novel pharmaceutical treatments reducing cardiovascular events in dyslipidaemia patients must demonstrate clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness to promote long-term adoption by patients, physicians, and insurers.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of statin monotherapy compared to additive lipid-lowering therapies for primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention from the perspective of Germany's healthcare system.

METHODS

Transition probabilities and hazard ratios were derived from cardiovascular outcome trials for statin combinations with icosapent ethyl (REDUCE-IT), evolocumab (FOURIER), alirocumab (ODYSSEY), ezetimibe (IMPROVE-IT), and fibrate (ACCORD). Costs and utilities were retrieved from previous literature. The incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was simulated with a Markov cohort model. The main outcomes were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

For primary prevention, the addition of icosapent ethyl to statin generated 0.81 QALY and €14,732 costs (ICER: 18,133), whereas fibrates yielded 0.63 QALY and € - 10,516 costs (ICER: - 16,632). For secondary prevention, the addition of ezetimibe to statin provided 0.61 QALY at savings of € - 5,796 (ICER: - 9,555) and icosapent ethyl yielded 0.99 QALY and €14,333 costs (ICER: 14,485). PCSK9 inhibitors offered 0.55 and 0.87 QALY at costs of €62,722 and €87,002 for evolocumab (ICER: 114,639) and alirocumab (ICER: 100,532), respectively. A 95% probability of cost-effectiveness was surpassed at €20,000 for icosapent ethyl (primary and secondary prevention), €119,000 for alirocumab, and €149,000 for evolocumab.

CONCLUSIONS

For primary cardiovascular prevention, a combination therapy of icosapent ethyl plus statin is a cost-effective use of resources compared to statin monotherapy. For secondary prevention, icosapent ethyl, ezetimibe, evolocumab, and alirocumab increase patient benefit at different economic costs.

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.

The Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility of Statin Drug for the Treatment of Patients with Cardiovascular Disease, A Systematic Review

Cardiovascular diseases impose a burden of disease and economic burden on society. With regard to different drugs are used to treat cardiovascular disease; these interventions should be economically evaluated and them that the most cost-effective were selected. The aim of this study was to investigate the studies carried on the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of statin drugs for the treatment of patients with cardiovascular disease between 2004 and 2020. Quality assessment of the articles was examined by Drummond's checklist. Given that the inclusion criteria, 26 articles included in the review. The results of this review showed that many articles related to the economic evaluation of statin drugs adhered international standards for performing economic evaluation studies. All the studies mentioned the source of effectiveness (the second criteria) and alternative options for the comparison (the third criteria). Atorvastatin and rosuvastatin drugs were the main options for the comparison in the studies. Although the results of the studies were different in some aspects, such as the type of modeling, costs items and the study perspective, they reached the same results which the use of statin drugs versus no-drug can decrease cost, cardiovascular events and deaths and increase QALY. The results were nearly different due to study design, time horizon, efficacy, and drug prices.

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.

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

AIMS

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of ezetimibe with statin therapy vs statin monotherapy from a US payer perspective, assuming the impending patent expiration of ezetimibe.

METHODS

A Markov-like economic model consisting of 28 distinct health states was used. Model population data were obtained from US linked claims and electronic medical records, with inclusion criteria based on diagnostic guidelines. Inputs came from recent clinical trials, meta-analyses, and cost-effectiveness analyses. The base-case scenario was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding ezetimibe 10 mg to statin in patients aged 35-74 years with a history of coronary heart disease (CHD) and/or stroke, and with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels ≥70 mg/dL over a lifetime horizon, assuming a 90% price reduction of ezetimibe after 1 year to take into account the impending patent expiration in the second quarter of 2017. Sub-group analyses included patients with LDL-C levels ≥100 mg/dL and patients with diabetes with LDL-C levels ≥70 mg/dL.

RESULTS

The lifetime discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ezetimibe added to statin was $9,149 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for the base-case scenario. For patients with LDL-C levels ≥100 mg/dL, the ICER was $839/QALY; for those with diabetes and LDL-C levels ≥70 mg/dL, it was $560/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the model was sensitive to changes in cost of ezetimibe, rate reduction of non-fatal CHD, and utility weight for non-fatal CHD in the base-case and sub-group analyses.

LIMITATIONS

Indirect costs or treatment discontinuation estimation were not included.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with statin monotherapy, ezetimibe with statin therapy was cost-effective for secondary prevention of CHD and stroke and for primary prevention of these conditions in patients whose LDL-C levels are ≥100 mg/dL and in patients with diabetes, taking into account a 90% cost reduction for ezetimibe.

A systematic literature review of methods of incorporating mortality in cost-effectiveness analyses of lipid-lowering therapies

AIMS

Cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a useful tool for estimating the value of an intervention in relation to alternatives. In cardiovascular disease (CVD), CEA is especially important, given the high economic and clinical burden. One key driver of value is CVD mortality prevention. However, data used to inform CEA parameters can be limited, given the difficulty in demonstrating statistically significant mortality benefit in randomized clinical trials (RCTs), due in part to the frequency of fatal events and limited trial durations. This systematic review identifies and summarizes whether published CVD-related CEAs have incorporated mortality benefits, and the methodology among those that did.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted of CEAs of lipid-lowering therapies published between 2000-2017. Health technology assessments (HTA) and full-length manuscripts were included, and sources of mortality data and methods of applying mortality benefits were extracted. Results were summarized as proportions of articles to articulate common practices in CEAs of CVD.

RESULTS

This review identified 100 studies for inclusion, comprising 93 full-length manuscripts and seven HTA reviews. Among these, 99% assumed a mortality benefit in the model. However, 87 of these studies that incorporated mortality differences did so despite the trials used to inform model parameters not demonstrating statistically significant differences in mortality. None of the 12 studies that used statistically significant findings from an individual RCT were based on active control studies. In a sub-group analysis considering the 60 CEAs that incorporated a direct mortality benefit, 48 (80%) did not have RCT evidence for statistically significant benefit in CVD mortality.

LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

The finding that few CEA models included mortality inputs from individual RCTs of lipid-lowering therapy may be surprising, as one might expect that treatment efficacy should be based on robust clinical evidence. However, regulatory requirements in CVD-related RCTs often lead to insufficient sample sizes and observation periods for detecting a difference in CVD mortality, which results in the use of intermediate outcomes, composite end-points, or meta-analysis to extrapolate long-term mortality benefit in a lifetime CEA.

A Systematic Review of Cardiovascular Outcomes-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Lipid-Lowering Therapies

BACKGROUND

Previous reviews have evaluated economic analyses of lipid-lowering therapies using lipid levels as surrogate markers for cardiovascular disease. However, drug approval and health technology assessment agencies have stressed that surrogates should only be used in the absence of clinical endpoints.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to identify and summarise the methodologies, weaknesses and strengths of economic models based on atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event rates.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness evaluations of lipid-lowering therapies using cardiovascular event rates in adults with hyperlipidaemia were sought in Medline, Embase, Medline In-Process, PubMed and NHS EED and conference proceedings. Search results were independently screened, extracted and quality checked by two reviewers.

RESULTS

Searches until February 2016 retrieved 3443 records, from which 26 studies (29 publications) were selected. Twenty-two studies evaluated secondary prevention (four also assessed primary prevention), two considered only primary prevention and two included mixed primary and secondary prevention populations. Most studies (18) based treatment-effect estimates on single trials, although more recent evaluations deployed meta-analyses (5/10 over the last 10 years). Markov models (14 studies) were most commonly used and only one study employed discrete event simulation. Models varied particularly in terms of health states and treatment-effect duration. No studies used a systematic review to obtain utilities. Most studies took a healthcare perspective (21/26) and sourced resource use from key trials instead of local data. Overall, reporting quality was suboptimal.

CONCLUSIONS

This review reveals methodological changes over time, but reporting weaknesses remain, particularly with respect to transparency of model reporting.

Cholesterol-lowering drugs: science and marketing

Long-term use of statin therapy is essential to obtain clinical benefits, but adherence is often suboptimal and some patients are also reported to fail because of 'statin resistance'. The identification of PCSK9 as a key factor in the LDL clearance pathway has led to the development of new monoclonal antibodies. Here we critically review the economic evaluations published in Europe and focused on statins. We searched the PubMed database to select the studies published from July 2006 to June 2016 and finally selected 19 articles. Overall, the majority of studies were conducted from a third-party payer's viewpoint and recurred to modelling. Most studies were sponsored by industry and funding seemed to play a pivotal role in the study design. Patients resistant to LDL-C level reduction were considered only in a few studies. The place in therapy of the new class of biologic should be considered a kind of 'third line' for cholesterol-lowering, after patients have failed with restricted dietary regimens and then with current drug therapies. Otherwise they could result in hardly sustainable expenses even for developed countries.

Cost-effectiveness of adding ezetimibe to atorvastatin vs switching to rosuvastatin therapy in Portugal

BACKGROUND

Statin monotherapy is the mainstay of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) management for high cardiovascular risk patients in Portugal; however, several therapeutic options are available and predicted to have different clinical and economic impacts. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding ezetimibe 10 mg (EZ10) to atorvastatin 10 or 20 mg (A10/20) vs switching to rosuvastatin 10 or 20 mg (R10/20) in Portuguese patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and/or diabetes who are currently above the LDL-C goal.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to describe CHD disease progression and the lifetime costs and utilities associated with each disease state were used to estimate the gains in life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), as well as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), of the two treatment regimens. Model inputs, such as age, gender, and prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors of the dyslipidemic Portuguese patients were obtained from the Portuguese cohort of the Dyslipidemia International Study (DYSIS). The efficacy of each treatment regimen, the cost of drugs and of treating CHD events, and the utilities for each disease state were derived from published sources.

RESULTS

The estimated lifetime discounted number of QALYs gained by patients treated with A10/20 was 8.70, while in those switching to R10/20 it was 8.81 and in those adding EZ10 it was 8.93. Discounted total health costs were estimated to be €11,131 for A10/20, but €14,511 and €16,571 for R10/20 and A10/20 + EZ10, respectively. The ICER of adding ezetimibe vs switching to rosuvastatin was €16,465/QALY. Based on the Portuguese cost-effectiveness willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000/QALY, adding ezetimibe vs switching to rosuvastatin would be a cost-effective use of resources in Portugal. Sensitivity analyses in patients with differing clinical histories (CHD or diabetes or both) yielded similar values, with no ICER over €30,000/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

From the perspective of the National Health Service, prescribing ezetimibe to high cardiovascular risk patients being treated with atorvastatin vs switching them to rosuvastatin is projected to be a cost-effective use of resources in Portugal.

Therapeutic practice patterns related to statin potency and ezetimibe/simvastatin combination therapies in lowering LDL-C in patients with high-risk cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

Statin combination therapy and statin uptitration have been shown to be efficacious in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering and are recommended for patients with high-risk coronary heart disease (CHD) who do not reach guideline-endorsed LDL-C goals on statin monotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

This analysis evaluated treatment practice patterns and LDL-C lowering for patients with CHD/CHD risk equivalent on statin monotherapy in a real-world practice setting in the United States.

METHODS

In this retrospective, observational study, patients with CHD/CHD risk equivalent on statin therapy were identified during 2004 to 2008 in a US managed care database. Prescribing patterns and effect of switching from statin monotherapy to combination ezetimibe/simvastatin therapy vs uptitration to higher statin dose/potency level and no change from initial statin potency on LDL-C lowering were assessed. Percentage of change from baseline in LDL-C levels and odds ratios for LDL-C goal attainment were estimated with analyses of covariance and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 27,919 eligible patients on statin therapy, 2671 (9.6%) switched to ezetimibe/simvastatin therapy, 11,035 (39.5%) uptitrated statins, and 14,213 (50.9%) remained on the same statin monotherapy. LDL-C reduction from baseline and attainment of LDL-C <100 and <70 mg/dL were substantially greater for patients who switched to ezetimibe/simvastatin therapy (-24.0%, 81.2%, and 35.2%, respectively) than for patients who titrated (-9.6%, 68.0%, and 18.4%, respectively) or remained on initial statin therapy (4.9%, 72.2%, and 23.7%, respectively). The odds ratios for attainment of LDL-C <100 and <70 mg/dL were also higher for patients who switched than for patients who uptitrated and had no therapy change than for patients who titrated vs no therapy change. Similarly, among a subgroup of patients not at LDL-C <100 mg/dL on baseline therapy, attainment of LDL-C <100 and <70 mg/dL was greater for patients who switched than for statin uptitration vs no change, as well as for patients who uptritrated statins vs no therapy change.

CONCLUSION

In this study, LDL-C lowering and goal attainment rates improved substantially for patients with high-risk CHD on statin monotherapy who switched to combination ezetimibe/statin or uptitrated their statin therapies; however, approximately one-third of these patients still did not attain the optional recommended LDL-C goal of <70 mg/dL. Moreover, these higher efficacy lipid-lowering therapies were infrequently prescribed, indicating the need for further assessment of barriers to LDL-C goal attainment in actual practice settings.

Principles of health economic evaluations of lipid-lowering strategies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Policy decision-making in cardiovascular disease is increasingly informed by the results generated from decision-analytic models (DAMs). The methodological approaches and assumptions used in these DAMs impact on the results generated and can influence a policy decision based on a cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) threshold. Decision makers need to be provided with a clear understanding of the key sources of evidence and how they are used in the DAM to make an informed judgement on the quality and appropriateness of the results generated.

RECENT FINDINGS

Our review identified 12 studies exploring the cost-effectiveness of pharmaceutical lipid-lowering interventions published since January 2010. All studies used Markov models with annual cycles to represent the long-term clinical pathway. Important differences in the model structures and evidence base used within the DAMs were identified. Whereas the reporting standards were reasonably good, there were many instances when reporting of methods could be improved, particularly relating to baseline risk levels, long-term benefit of treatment and health state utility values.

SUMMARY

There is a scope for improvement in the reporting of evidence and modelling approaches used within DAMs to provide decision makers with a clearer understanding of the quality and validity of the results generated. This would be assisted by fuller publication of models, perhaps through detailed web appendices.

Ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg versus rosuvastatin 10 mg in high-risk hypercholesterolemic patients stratified by prior statin treatment potency

OBJECTIVE

This post-hoc analysis compared the lipid-altering efficacy of Ezetimibe/Simvastatin 10/20 mg (EZ/Simva) versus Rosuvastatin 10 mg (Rosuva) in patients stratified by statin potency/dose prior to randomization.

METHODS

Patients with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) despite prior statin treatment (n=618) were randomized 1:1 to EZ/Simva 10/20 mg or Rosuva 10 mg for 6 weeks. Percent change from baseline in lipids and attainment of lipid targets were assessed within each subgroup (low potency n=369, high potency n=249). Consistency of the treatment effect across subgroups was evaluated by testing for treatment-by-subgroup interaction. No multiplicity adjustments were made.

RESULTS

Significant treatment-by-subgroup interaction occurred for LDL-C (p=0.013), total cholesterol (p=0.025), non-HDL-C (p=0.032), and apolipoprotein B (p=0.016) with greater between-treatment differences in favor of EZ/Simva observed in patients from the high potency stratum vs low potency stratum. Individual and triple target attainment was higher for Eze/Simva compared with Rosuva in both strata.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with Rosuva, switching to EZ/Simva provided greater reductions in LDL-C, total cholesterol, non-HDL-C and apolipoprotein B and higher target attainment in patients on prior statin treatment, regardless of potency, although patients treated with higher potency statins prior to randomization experienced greater between treatment differences in favor of EZ/Simva.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00479713.