Cost-effectiveness of fluvastatin following successful first percutaneous coronary intervention

Do Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Quality Measures Reflect Cost-Effectiveness Evidence?

OBJECTIVES

Despite its importance of quality measures used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the underlying cost-effectiveness evidence has not been examined. This study aimed to analyze cost-effectiveness evidence associated with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services quality measures.

METHODS

After classifying 23 quality measures with the Donabedian's structure-process-outcome quality of care model, we identified cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) relevant to these measures from the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry based on the PICOTS (population, intervention, comparator, outcome, time horizon, and setting) framework. We then summarized available incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to determine the cost-effectiveness of the quality measures.

RESULTS

The 23 quality measures were categorized into 14 process, 7 outcome, and 2 structure measures. Cost-effectiveness evidence was only available for 8 of 14 process measures. Two measures (Tobacco Screening and Hemoglobin bA1c Control) were cost-saving and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) improving, and 5 (Depression Screening, Influenza Immunization, Colon Cancer Screening, Breast Cancer Screening, and Statin Therapy) were highly cost-effective (median ICER ≤ $50 000/QALY). The remaining measure (Fall Screening) had a median ICER of $120 000/QALY. No CEAs were available for 15 measures: 10 defined by subjective patient ratings and 5 employed outcome measures without specifying an intervention or process.

CONCLUSIONS

When relevant CEAs were available, cost-effectiveness evidence was consistent with quality measures (measures were cost-effective). Nevertheless, most quality measures were based on subjective ratings or outcome measures, posing a challenge in identifying supporting economic evidence. Refining and aligning quality measures with cost-effectiveness evidence can help further improve healthcare efficiency by demonstrating that they are good indicators of both quality and cost-effectiveness of care.

Fluvastatin for lowering lipids

BACKGROUND

Fluvastatin is thought to be the least potent statin on the market, however, the dose-related magnitude of effect of fluvastatin on blood lipids is not known.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objectiveTo quantify the effects of various doses of fluvastatin on blood total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL cholesterol), high-density lipoprotein (HDL cholesterol), and triglycerides in participants with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease.Secondary objectivesTo quantify the variability of the effect of various doses of fluvastatin.To quantify withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) in randomised placebo-controlled trials.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to February 2017: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2017, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to February Week 2 2017), MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, Embase (1974 to February Week 2 2017), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, CDSR, DARE, Epistemonikos and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised placebo-controlled and uncontrolled before and after trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of fluvastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks in participants of any age with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included, and extracted data. We entered data from placebo-controlled and uncontrolled before and after trials into Review Manager 5 as continuous and generic inverse variance data, respectively. WDAEs information was collected from the placebo-controlled trials. We assessed all trials using the 'Risk of bias' tool under the categories of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other potential biases.

MAIN RESULTS

One-hundred and forty-five trials (36 placebo controlled and 109 before and after) evaluated the dose-related efficacy of fluvastatin in 18,846 participants. The participants were of any age with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease, and fluvastatin effects were studied within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Log dose-response data over doses of 2.5 mg to 80 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol and a weak linear dose-related effect on blood triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of fluvastatin on blood HDL cholesterol. Fluvastatin 10 mg/day to 80 mg/day reduced LDL cholesterol by 15% to 33%, total cholesterol by 11% to 25% and triglycerides by 3% to 17.5%. For every two-fold dose increase there was a 6.0% (95% CI 5.4 to 6.6) decrease in blood LDL cholesterol, a 4.2% (95% CI 3.7 to 4.8) decrease in blood total cholesterol and a 4.2% (95% CI 2.0 to 6.3) decrease in blood triglycerides. The quality of evidence for these effects was judged to be high. When compared to atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, fluvastatin was about 12-fold less potent than atorvastatin and 46-fold less potent than rosuvastatin at reducing LDL cholesterol. Very low quality of evidence showed no difference in WDAEs between fluvastatin and placebo in 16 of 36 of these short-term trials (risk ratio 1.52 (95% CI 0.94 to 2.45).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Fluvastatin lowers blood total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglyceride in a dose-dependent linear fashion. Based on the effect on LDL cholesterol, fluvastatin is 12-fold less potent than atorvastatin and 46-fold less potent than rosuvastatin. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with fluvastatin because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 56% of the placebo-controlled trials.

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.

The cost-effectiveness of fluvastatin in Hungary following successful percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

The Lescol Intervention Prevention Study (LIPS) showed substantial gains in health outcomes from statins following PCI. That study was a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial undertaken in 77 centres, predominantly in Europe, of patients with moderate hypercholesterolemia who had undergone their first PCI. The evidence on cost-effectiveness has been established for the UK, USA and the Netherlands, but due to different health system cost structures, the results may not be applicable to other European countries. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of fluvastatin used following first PCI in Hungary.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A deterministic Markov model was used to estimate the incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year gained, with cost data drawn from the Hungarian National Health Insurance Fund. Effectiveness data on fluvastatin was derived directly from LIPS and utility weights from previous studies on heart disease. Sensitivity analyses were conducted around key parameters and analyses were conducted for subgroups identified in LIPS.

RESULTS

Treatment with fluvastatin cost an additional 1,704 euro and resulted in an additional 0.107 QALYs per patient discounted over 10-years compared with controls. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained was 15,910 euro. The key determinants of cost-effectiveness were the effectiveness of fluvastatin, utility weights, cost of fluvastatin, and the time horizon evaluated. Fluvastatin was substantially more cost-effective in patients with diabetes, renal disease, multi-vessel disease or LDL-cholesterol >3.4 mmol/l.

CONCLUSIONS

Fluvastatin is an economically efficient pharmaceutical for reducing heart disease in Hungary and other European countries in patients following PCI.

Optimal revascularization strategies for multivessel coronary artery disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this article is to review the current status of optimal revascularization strategies in patients presenting with multivessel coronary artery disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Coronary artery bypass surgery is the gold standard for patients with multivessel disease. Recent developments in the interventional field, like drug-eluting stents, which significantly reduced restenosis and the need for repeat revascularizations, have cut back one of the largest limitations of percutaneous coronary intervention.

SUMMARY

There is currently little evidence to believe that in a general population, opting for either coronary artery bypass surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention would imply a better long-term survival. Coronary artery bypass surgery is still associated with higher rates of complete revascularization and a higher durability than percutaneous coronary intervention, resulting in lower rates of repeat revascularization. The current evidence, however, is based on sub-optimal inconclusive data from single center or multicenter registries. Until the results of several dedicated ongoing randomized trials are presented, the choice for a revascularization strategy should be made not only on the basis of feasibility but also by taking into account each patient's co-morbidities and risk factors. Careful monitoring of glycemic control and lipid concentrations and an optimal pharmacological treatment are at least as important in achieving an optimal outcome.

Economic evaluations of cholesterol-lowering drugs: a critical and systematic review

The wide availability of economic evaluations and their increasing importance for decision making emphasises the need for economic evaluations that are methodologically sound. The aim of this review was to provide users of economic evaluations of cholesterol-lowering drugs with an insight into the quality of these evaluations. By focusing on the most relevant studies, the gap between research and policy making may be narrowed. A systematic review was conducted. All Dutch and English publications on economic evaluations of cholesterol-lowering drugs were identified by searching PubMed, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database (CRD), the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), the Health Technology Assessment database (HTA) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). A search strategy was set up to identify the articles to be included. The quality of these articles was assessed using Drummond's checklists. The scoring was performed by at least two reviewers. When necessary, disagreement between these reviewers was decided upon in a consensus meeting. We calculated an average quality score for the included articles. The search identified 1390 articles, of which 23 were included. Most studies measured the costs per life-year gained. The overall score per study was disappointing and varied between 2.7 and 7.7, with an average of 5.5. Most studies scored high on the measurement of costs and consequences, whereas the establishment of effectiveness left room for improvement. Only two studies included a well performed incremental analysis. This study noted an increase of quality of economic evaluations over time, suggesting the value of cost-effectiveness studies for policy decisions increases over time. In general, piggy-back evaluations tended to score higher on quality and may therefore be more valuable in decision making.