Population-based health-economic evaluation of the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in Finland

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.

Lost Therapeutic Benefit of Delayed Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Control in Statin-Treated Patients and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lipid-Lowering Intensification

OBJECTIVES

Attainment of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) therapeutic goals in statin-treated patients remains suboptimal. We quantified the health economic impact of delayed lipid-lowering intensification from an Australian healthcare and societal perspective.

METHODS

A lifetime Markov cohort model (n = 1000) estimating the impact on coronary heart disease (CHD) of intensifying lipid-lowering treatment in statin-treated patients with uncontrolled LDL-C, at moderate to high risk of CHD with no delay or after a 5-year delay, compared with standard of care (no intensification), starting at age 40 years. Intensification was tested with high-intensity statins or statins + ezetimibe. LDL-C levels were extracted from a primary care cohort. CHD risk was estimated using the pooled cohort equation. The effect of cumulative exposure to LDL-C on CHD risk was derived from Mendelian randomization data. Outcomes included CHD events, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), healthcare and productivity costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). All outcomes were discounted annually by 5%.

RESULTS

Over the lifetime horizon, compared with standard of care, achieving LDL-C control with no delay with high-intensity statins prevented 29 CHD events and yielded 30 extra QALYs (ICERs AU$13 205/QALY) versus 22 CHD events and 16 QALYs (ICER AU$20 270/QALY) with a 5-year delay. For statins + ezetimibe, no delay prevented 53 CHD events and gave 45 extra QALYs (ICER AU$37 271/QALY) versus 40 CHD events and 29 QALYs (ICER of AU$44 218/QALY) after a 5-year delay.

CONCLUSIONS

Delaying attainment of LDL-C goals translates into lost therapeutic benefit and a waste of resources. Urgent policies are needed to improve LDL-C goal attainment in statin-treated patients.

Cost-Effectiveness of the CNIC-Polypill Strategy Compared With Separate Monocomponents in Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease in Portugal: The MERCURY Study

Background: Cardiovascular (CV) diseases remain a leading and costly cause of death globally. Patients with previous CV events are at high risk of recurrence. Secondary prevention therapies improve CV risk factor control and reduce disease costs. Objectives: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a CV polypill strategy (CNIC-Polypill) compared with the loose combination of monocomponents to improve the control of CV risk factors in patients with previous coronary heart disease or stroke. Methods: A Markov model cost-utility analysis was developed using 4 health states, SMART risk equation, and 3-month cycles for year 1 and annual cycles thereafter, over a lifetime horizon from the perspective of the National Health System in Portugal (base case). The NEPTUNO study, Portuguese registries, mortality tables, official reports, and the literature were consulted to define effectiveness, epidemiological costs, and utility data. Outcomes were costs (estimated in 2020 euros) per life-year (LY) and quality-adjusted LY (QALY) gained. A 4% discount rate was applied. Alternative scenarios and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses tested the consistency and robustness of results. Results: The CNIC-Polypill strategy in secondary prevention provides more LY and QALY, at a higher cost, than monocomponents. The incremental cost-utility ratio is €1557/QALY gained. Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30 000/QALY gained, there is a 79.7% and a 44.4% probability of the CNIC-Polypill being cost-effective and cost-saving, respectively, compared with the loose combination of monocomponents. Results remain consistent in the alternative scenarios and robust in the sensitivity analyses. Discussion: The model reflects increments in the number of years patients would live and in quality of life with the CNIC-Polypill. The clinical effectiveness of the CNIC-Polypill strategy initially demonstrated in the NEPTUNO study has been recently corroborated in the SECURE trial. The incremental cost of the CNIC-Polypill strategy emerges slightly above the comparator, but willingness-to-pay estimates and sensitivity analyses indicate that the CNIC-Polypill strategy is consistently cost-effective compared with monocomponents and remains within acceptable affordability margins. Conclusion: The CNIC-Polypill is a cost-effective secondary prevention strategy. In patients with histories of coronary heart disease or stroke, the CNIC-Polypill more effectively controls CV risk factors compared with monocomponents.

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.

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.

Systematic Review of Validity Assessments of Framingham Risk Score Results in Health Economic Modelling of Lipid-Modifying Therapies in Europe

BACKGROUND

The Framingham Risk Score is used both in the clinical setting and in health economic analyses to predict the risk for future coronary heart disease events. Based on an American population, the Framingham Risk Score has been criticised for potential overestimation of risk in European populations.

OBJECTIVE

We investigated whether the use of the Framingham Risk Score actually was validated in health economic studies that modelled the effects of lipid-lowering treatment with statins on coronary heart disease events in European populations.

METHODS

In this systematic literature review of all relevant published studies in English (literature searched September 2016 in PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS), 99 studies were identified and 22 were screened in full text, 18 of which were included. Key data were extracted and synthesised narratively.

RESULTS

The only type of validation identified was a comparison against coronary heart disease risk data from one primary preventive and one secondary preventive clinical investigation, and from observational population data in one study. Taken together, those three studies reported an overall satisfactory accuracy in the results obtained by Framingham Risk Score predictions, but the Framingham Risk Score tended to underestimate non-fatal myocardial infarctions. In five studies, potential issues in applying the Framingham Risk Score on a European population were not addressed.

CONCLUSION

Further studies are needed to ascertain that the Framingham Risk Score can accurately predict cardiovascular outcome in health economic modelling studies on lipid-lowering therapy in European populations. Future modelling studies using the Framingham Risk Score would benefit from validating the results against other data.

Modeled Health Economic Impact of a Hypothetical Certolizumab Pegol Risk-Sharing Scheme for Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in Finland

PURPOSE

To model the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of certolizumab pegol (CZP) (with and without a hypothetical risk-sharing scheme at treatment initiation for biologic-naïve patients) versus the current mix of reimbursed biologics for treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Finland.

METHODS

A probabilistic model with 12-week cycles and a societal approach was developed for the years 2015-2019, accounting for differences in ACR responses (meta-analysis), mortality, and persistence. The risk-sharing scheme included a treatment switch and refund of the costs associated with CZP acquisition if patients failed to achieve ACR20 response at week 12. For the current treatment mix, ACR20 at week 24 determined treatment continuation. Quality-adjusted life years were derived on the basis of the Health Utilities Index.

RESULTS

In the Finnish target population, CZP treatment with a risk-sharing scheme led to a estimated annual net expenditure decrease ranging from 1.7% in 2015 to 5.6% in 2019 compared with the current treatment mix. Per patient over the 5 years, CZP risk sharing was estimated to decrease the time without ACR response by 5%-units, decrease work absenteeism by 24 days, and increase the time with ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 responses by 5%-, 6%-, and 1%-units, respectively, with a gain of 0.03 quality-adjusted life years. The modeled risk-sharing scheme showed reduced costs of €7866 per patient, with a more than 95% probability of cost-effectiveness when compared with the current treatment mix.

CONCLUSION

The present analysis estimated that CZP, with or without the risk-sharing scheme, is a cost-effective alternative treatment for RA patients in Finland. The surplus provided by the CZP risk-sharing scheme could fund treatment for 6% more Finnish RA patients.

FUNDING

UCB Pharma.

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.

Cost-utility of First-line Disease-modifying Treatments for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) (dimethyl fumarate [DMF] 240 mg PO BID, teriflunomide 14 mg once daily, glatiramer acetate 20 mg SC once daily, interferon [IFN]-β1a 44 µg TIW, IFN-β1b 250 µg EOD, and IFN-β1a 30 µg IM QW) and best supportive care (BSC) in the health care payer setting in Finland.

METHODS

The primary outcome was the modeled incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; €/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained, 3%/y discounting). Markov cohort modeling with a 15-year time horizon was employed. During each 1-year modeling cycle, patients either maintained the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score or experienced progression, developed secondary progressive MS (SPMS) or showed EDSS progression in SPMS, experienced relapse with/without hospitalization, experienced an adverse event (AE), or died. Patients׳ characteristics, RRMS progression probabilities, and standardized mortality ratios were derived from a registry of patients with MS in Finland. A mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) informed the treatment effects. Finnish EuroQol Five-Dimensional Questionnaire, Three-Level Version quality-of-life and direct-cost estimates associated with EDSS scores, relapses, and AEs were applied. Four approaches were used to assess the outcomes: cost-effectiveness plane and efficiency frontiers (relative value of efficient treatments); cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier, which demonstrated optimal treatment to maximize net benefit; Bayesian treatment ranking (BTR); and an impact investment assessment (IIA; a cost-benefit assessment), which increased the clinical interpretation and appeal of modeled outcomes in terms of absolute benefit gained with fixed drug-related budget. Robustness of results was tested extensively with sensitivity analyses.

FINDINGS

Based on the modeled results, teriflunomide was less costly, with greater QALYs, versus glatiramer acetate and the IFNs. Teriflunomide had the lowest ICER (24,081) versus BSC. DMF brought marginally more QALYs (0.089) than did teriflunomide, with greater costs over the 15 years. The ICER for DMF versus teriflunomide was 75,431. Teriflunomide had >50% cost-effectiveness probabilities with a willingness-to-pay threshold of <€77,416/QALY gained. According to BTR, teriflunomide was first-best among the disease-modifying therapies, with potential willingness-to-pay thresholds of up to €68,000/QALY gained. In the IIA, teriflunomide was associated with the longest incremental quality-adjusted survival and time without cane use. Generally, primary outcomes results were robust, based on the sensitivity analyses. The results were sensitive only to large changes in analysis perspective or mixed-treatment comparison.

IMPLICATIONS

The results were sensitive only to large changes in analysis perspective or MTC. Based on the analyses, teriflunomide was cost-effective versus BSC or DMF with the common threshold values, was dominant versus other first-line RRMS treatments, and provided the greatest impact on investment. Teriflunomide is potentially the most cost-effective option among first-line treatments of RRMS in Finland.

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 statin treatment for primary prevention in conditions of real-world adherence--estimates from the Finnish prescription register

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of statin therapy for primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) events under real-world adherence.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness model was applied to estimate the expected 10-year costs and health outcomes (in terms of quality-adjusted life-years, QALYs) associated with and without statin treatment (at defined adherence levels) among hypothetical cohorts of Finnish men and women who were initially without established CHD. Treatment efficacy, cost, and quality of life estimates were obtained from published sources. Long-term treatment adherence was measured based on data from the national prescription register.

RESULTS

At an assumed willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 per QALY gained, statin treatment with real-world adherence was cost-effective among the older patient groups when the patients' 10-year CHD risk was as high as 20% and did not seem cost-effective in the youngest age groups. Conversely, statin treatment with full adherence was cost-effective for almost all patient groups with a 10-year CHD risk of at least 15%.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though generic statins are now low-cost drugs, treatment adherence seems to have a major impact on the cost-effectiveness of statin treatment in primary prevention. This finding stresses the importance of making a concerted effort for improving adherence among patients on statin therapy to obtain full benefit of the investment in statins. Therefore, novel cost-effective approaches to improve treatment adherence are warranted.

Primary-care-based episodes of care and their costs in a three-month follow-up in Finland

OBJECTIVE

To explore patient characteristics, resource use, and costs related to different episodes of care (EOC) in Finnish health care.

DESIGN

Data were collected during a three-month prospective, non-randomized follow-up study (Effective Health Centre) using questionnaires and an electronic health record.

SETTING

Three primary health care practices in Pirkanmaa, Finland.

SUBJECTS

Altogether 622 patients were recruited during a one-week period. Inclusion criteria: the patient had a doctor's or nurse's appointment on the recruiting day and agreed to participate. Exclusion criteria: patients visiting a specialized health guidance clinic for pregnant women, children, and mothers.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient characteristics, resource use, and costs based on the ICPC-2 EOC classification.

RESULTS

On average, the patients had 1.22 EOCs during the three months. Patient characteristics and resource use differed between the EOC chapters. Chapter L, "Musculoskeletal", had the most episodes (17%). The most common (8%) single EOC was "upper respiratory infection". The mean cost of an episode (COE) was €389.56 (standard error 61.11) and the median COE was €165.00 (interquartile range €118.46-288.56) during the three-month follow-up. The most expensive chapter was K, "Circulatory", with a mean COE of €909.85. The most expensive single COE was in chapter K, €32 545.56. The most expensive 1% of the COEs summed up covered 36% of the total COEs.

CONCLUSION

Patient characteristics, resource use, and costs differed between the ICPC-2 chapters, which could be taken into account in service planning and pricing. Future studies should incorporate more specific diagnoses, larger data sets, and longer follow-up times. Key points The most common episodes were under the ICPC-2 "Musculoskeletal" chapter, but the highest mean and single-episode costs were related to the "Circulatory" chapter. The mean (median) cost of episodes that started in primary care was €390 (€165) during the three-month follow-up. Patient characteristics, resource use, and costs differed significantly between the ICPC-2 chapters. The most expensive 1% of the episodes covered 36% of the total costs of all the episodes.

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.

Economic evaluation of ezetimibe combined with simvastatin for the treatment of primary hypercholesterolaemia

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of ezetimibe plus simvastatin (E/S) versus atorvastatin or simvastatin monotherapy as second-line treatment of primary hypercholesterolaemia from the Dutch healthcare perspective.

METHODS

The evaluation used a Markov model and patient data from the Dutch EASEGO study in which patients failing to reach goal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels on atorvastatin 10 mg or simvastatin 20 mg had their dose doubled or switched to ezetimibe 10 mg plus generic simvastatin 20 mg (E10/S20). The second scenario, based on Dutch guidelines, switched patients from simvastatin 40 mg to atorvastatin 40 mg, or ezetimibe 10 mg was added to simvastatin 40 mg (E10/S40). The key effectiveness input measure was change in total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein ratio obtained from the EASEGO study. In conformity with published studies linking reduced lipid levels to reduced risk of cardiovascular events, the present model assumed that a lipid decrease with ezetimibe may be a signal for reduced risk of cardiovascular events. Model parameters were derived from published literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed for the key parameters.

RESULTS

In the EASEGO scenario, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for E10/S20 was <euro>3497/quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) vs atorvastatin 20 mg and <euro>26,417/QALY vs simvastatin 40 mg. In the Dutch guidelines scenario, E10/S40 was dominant (more effective and cost-saving) vs atorvastatin 40 mg. Varying model inputs had limited impact on the cost-effectiveness of E/S.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis showed the cost-effectiveness of E/S versus atorvastatin 20 mg or simvastatin 40 mg (EASEGO scenario) at a threshold of <euro>30,000/QALY and vs atorvastatin 40 mg was dominant (Dutch guidelines). Thus, E/S seems a valuable cost-effective second-line treatment option for patients not attaining lipid treatment goals.

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.

Health economic consequences of reducing salt intake and replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat in the adult Finnish population: estimates based on the FINRISK and FINDIET studies

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

To predict the health economic consequences of modest reductions in the daily intake of salt (-1.0 g per day) and replacement of saturated fat (SFA, -1.0 energy percent (E%)) with polyunsaturated fat (PUFA, +1.0 E%) in the Finnish population aged 30-74 years.

SUBJECTS/METHODS

A Markov model with dynamic population structure was constructed to present the natural history of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) based on the most current information about the age- and sex-specific cardiovascular risk factors, dietary habits and nutrient intake. To predict the undiscounted future health economic consequences of the reduction of dietary salt and SFA, the model results were extrapolated for the years 2010-2030 by replacing the baseline population in the year 2007 with the extrapolated populations from the official Finnish statistics. Finnish costs (€2009, societal perspective) and EQ-5D utilities were obtained from published references.

RESULTS

During the next 20 years, a population-wide intervention directed at salt intake and dietary fat quality could potentially lead to 8000-13,000 prevented CVD cases among the Finnish adults compared the situation in year 2007. In addition, the reduced incidence of CVDs could gain 26,000-45,000 quality-adjusted life years and save €150-225 million over the same time period.

CONCLUSION

A modest reduction of salt and replacement of SFA with PUFA in food products can significantly reduce the burden of CVD in the adult Finnish population. This impact may be even larger in the near future due to the ageing of Finnish population.