The lifetime cost effectiveness of amlodipine-based therapy plus atorvastatin compared with atenolol plus atorvastatin, amlodipine-based therapy alone and atenolol-based therapy alone: results from ASCOT1

Determining optimal strategies for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The aim of the study was to guide researchers and commissioners of cardiovascular disease preventative services towards possible cost-effective interventions by reviewing published economic analyses of interventions for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, conducted for or within the UK NHS.

METHODS

In January 2021, electronic searches of MEDLINE and Embase were carried out to find economic evaluations of cardiovascular disease preventative services. We included fully published economic evaluations (including economic models) conducted alongside randomised controlled trials of any form of intervention that was aimed at the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, including, but not limited to, drugs, diet, physical activity and public health. Full systematic review methods were used with predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria, data extraction and formal quality appraisal [using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist and the framework for the quality assessment of decision analytic modelling by Philips et al. (Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S, Riemsma R, et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess 2004;8(36)].

RESULTS

Of 4351 non-duplicate citations, eight articles met the review's inclusion criteria. The eight articles focused on health promotion (n = 3), lipid-lowering medicine (n = 4) and blood pressure-lowering medication (n = 1). The majority of the populations in each study had at least one risk factor for cardiovascular disease or were at high risk of cardiovascular disease. For the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, all strategies were cost-effective at a threshold of £25,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, except increasing motivational interviewing in addition to other behaviour change strategies. Where the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was reported, interventions varied from dominant (i.e. less expensive and more effective than the comparator intervention) to £55,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

FUTURE WORK AND LIMITATIONS

We found few health economic analyses of interventions for primary cardiovascular disease prevention conducted within the last decade. Future economic assessments should be undertaken and presented in accordance with best practices so that future reviews may make clear recommendations to improve health policy.

CONCLUSIONS

It is difficult to establish direct comparisons or draw firm conclusions because of the uncertainty and heterogeneity among studies. However, interventions conducted for or within the UK NHS were likely to be cost-effective in people at increased risk of cardiovascular disease when compared with usual care or no intervention.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in Health Technology Assessment. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Economic impact of potentially inappropriate prescribing and related adverse events in older people: a cost-utility analysis using Markov models

OBJECTIVES

To determine the economic impact of three drugs commonly involved in potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in adults aged ≥65 years, including their adverse effects (AEs): long-term use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), benzodiazepines and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) at maximal dose; to assess cost-effectiveness of potential interventions to reduce PIP of each drug.

DESIGN

Cost-utility analysis. We developed Markov models incorporating the AEs of each PIP, populated with published estimates of probabilities, health system costs (in 2014 euro) and utilities.

PARTICIPANTS

A hypothetical cohort of 65 year olds analysed over 35 1-year cycles with discounting at 5% per year.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios with 95% credible intervals (CIs, generated in probabilistic sensitivity analysis) between each PIP and an appropriate alternative strategy. Models were then used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of potential interventions to reduce PIP for each of the three drug classes.

RESULTS

All three PIP drugs and their AEs are associated with greater cost and fewer QALYs compared with alternatives. The largest reduction in QALYs and incremental cost was for benzodiazepines compared with no sedative medication (€3470, 95% CI €2434 to €5001; -0.07 QALYs, 95% CI -0.089 to -0.047), followed by NSAIDs relative to paracetamol (€806, 95% CI €415 and €1346; -0.07 QALYs, 95% CI -0.131 to -0.026), and maximal dose PPIs compared with maintenance dose PPIs (€989, 95% CI -€69 and €2127; -0.01 QALYs, 95% CI -0.029 to 0.003). For interventions to reduce PIP, at a willingness-to-pay of €45 000 per QALY, targeting NSAIDs would be cost-effective up to the highest intervention cost per person of €1971. For benzodiazepine and PPI interventions, the equivalent cost was €1480 and €831, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term benzodiazepine and NSAID prescribing are associated with significantly increased costs and reduced QALYs. Targeting inappropriate NSAID prescribing appears to be the most cost-effective PIP intervention.

Cost Effectiveness of Support for People Starting a New Medication for a Long-Term Condition Through Community Pharmacies: An Economic Evaluation of the New Medicine Service (NMS) Compared with Normal Practice

BACKGROUND

The English community pharmacy New Medicine Service (NMS) significantly increases patient adherence to medicines, compared with normal practice. We examined the cost effectiveness of NMS compared with normal practice by combining adherence improvement and intervention costs with the effect of increased adherence on patient outcomes and healthcare costs.

METHODS

We developed Markov models for diseases targeted by the NMS (hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma and antiplatelet regimens) to assess the impact of patients' non-adherence. Clinical event probability, treatment pathway, resource use and costs were extracted from literature and costing tariffs. Incremental costs and outcomes associated with each disease were incorporated additively into a composite probabilistic model and combined with adherence rates and intervention costs from the trial. Costs per extra quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) were calculated from the perspective of NHS England, using a lifetime horizon.

RESULTS

NMS generated a mean of 0.05 (95% CI 0.00-0.13) more QALYs per patient, at a mean reduced cost of -£144 (95% CI -769 to 73). The NMS dominates normal practice with a probability of 0.78 [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) -£3166 per QALY]. NMS has a 96.7% probability of cost effectiveness compared with normal practice at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that targeting each disease with NMS has a probability over 0.90 of cost effectiveness compared with normal practice at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that the NMS increased patient medicine adherence compared with normal practice, which translated into increased health gain at reduced overall cost.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Trial reference number NCT01635361 ( http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01635361 ). Current Controlled trials: Trial reference number ISRCTN 23560818 ( http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN23560818/ ; DOI 10.1186/ISRCTN23560818 ). UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN) study 12494 ( http://public.ukcrn.org.uk/Search/StudyDetail.aspx?StudyID=12494 ).

FUNDING

Department of Health Policy Research Programme.

Economic evaluation alongside factorial trials: a systematic review of empirical studies

Although economic evaluations have been performed alongside factorial trials, there seems to be limited guidance/consensus on appropriate methods of analysis. Following Centre for Review and Dissemination guidance, a systematic review of published literature for all years was performed to explore how economic evaluation alongside factorial trials have been conducted and only full economic evaluations conducted alongside factorial trials were included. A total of 16 relevant studies were identified, and an assessment of these indicated that two methods: within-the-table and at-the-margins approaches were used for the analysis. With the exception of one study, all others did not consider interactions in costs and outcomes or give a detailed explanation of why a particular approach was adopted. The authors recommend that additional guidance is needed, and further research is required to evaluate the impact of alternative methods on policy recommendations and establish good practice methods for the economic analysis of factorial trials.

Modeling hard clinical end-point data in economic analyses

OBJECTIVE

The availability of hard clinical end-point data, such as that on cardiovascular (CV) events among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, is increasing, and as a result there is growing interest in using hard end-point data of this type in economic analyses. This study investigated published approaches for modeling hard end-points from clinical trials and evaluated their applicability in health economic models with different disease features.

METHODS

A review of cost-effectiveness models of interventions in clinically significant therapeutic areas (CV diseases, cancer, and chronic lower respiratory diseases) was conducted in PubMed and Embase using a defined search strategy. Only studies integrating hard end-point data from randomized clinical trials were considered. For each study included, clinical input characteristics and modeling approach were summarized and evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 33 articles (23 CV, eight cancer, two respiratory) were accepted for detailed analysis. Decision trees, Markov models, discrete event simulations, and hybrids were used. Event rates were incorporated either as constant rates, time-dependent risks, or risk equations based on patient characteristics. Risks dependent on time and/or patient characteristics were used where major event rates were >1%/year in models with fewer health states (<7). Models of infrequent events or with numerous health states generally preferred constant event rates.

LIMITATIONS

The detailed modeling information and terminology varied, sometimes requiring interpretation.

CONCLUSIONS

Key considerations for cost-effectiveness models incorporating hard end-point data include the frequency and characteristics of the relevant clinical events and how the trial data is reported. When event risk is low, simplification of both the model structure and event rate modeling is recommended. When event risk is common, such as in high risk populations, more detailed modeling approaches, including individual simulations or explicitly time-dependent event rates, are more appropriate to accurately reflect the trial data.

Combining antihypertensive and antihyperlipidemic agents - optimizing cardiovascular risk factor management

Clinical guidelines now recognize the importance of a multifactorial approach to managing cardiovascular (CV) risk. This idea was taken a step further with the concept of the Polypill™. There are, however, considerable patent, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, registration, and cost implications that will need to be overcome before the Polypill™ or other single-pill combinations of CV medications become widely available. However, a medication targeting blood pressure (BP) and lipids provides much of the proposed benefits of the Polypill™. A single-pill combination of the antihypertensive amlodipine besylate and the lipid-lowering medication atorvastatin calcium (SPAA) is currently available in many parts of the world. This review describes the rationale for this combination therapy and the clinical trials that have demonstrated that these two agents can be combined without the loss of efficacy for either agent or an increase in the incidence of adverse events. The recently completed Cluster Randomized Usual Care vs Caduet Investigation Assessing Long-term-risk (CRUCIAL trial) is discussed in detail. CRUCIAL was a 12-month, international, multicenter, prospective, open-label, parallel design, cluster-randomized trial, which demonstrated that a proactive intervention strategy based on SPAA in addition to usual care (UC) had substantial benefits on estimated CV risk, BP, and lipids over continued UC alone. Adherence with antihypertensive and lipid-lowering therapies outside of the controlled environment of clinical trials is very low (~30%–40% at 12 months). Observational studies have demonstrated that improving adherence to lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications may reduce CV events. One means of improving adherence is the use of single-pill combinations. Real-world observational studies have demonstrated that patients are more adherent to SPAA than co-administered antihypertensive and lipid-lowering therapy, and this improved adherence translated to reduced CV events. Taken together, these findings suggest that SPAA can play an important role in helping physicians improve the management of CV risk in their patients.

Value of primordial and primary prevention for cardiovascular disease: a policy statement from the American Heart Association

The process of atherosclerosis may begin in youth and continue for decades, leading to both nonfatal and fatal cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction, stroke, and sudden death. With primordial and primary prevention, cardiovascular disease is largely preventable. Clinical trial evidence has shown convincingly that pharmacological treatment of risk factors can prevent events. The data are less definitive but also highly suggestive that appropriate public policy and lifestyle interventions aimed at eliminating tobacco use, limiting salt consumption, encouraging physical exercise, and improving diet can prevent events. There has been concern about whether efforts aimed at primordial and primary prevention provide value (ie, whether such interventions are worth what we pay for them). Although questions about the value of therapeutics for acute disease may be addressed by cost-effectiveness analysis, the long time frames involved in evaluating preventive interventions make cost-effectiveness analysis difficult and necessarily flawed. Nonetheless, cost-effectiveness analyses reviewed in this policy statement largely suggest that public policy, community efforts, and pharmacological intervention are all likely to be cost-effective and often cost saving compared with common benchmarks. The high direct medical care and indirect costs of cardiovascular disease-approaching $450 billion a year in 2010 and projected to rise to over $1 trillion a year by 2030-make this a critical medical and societal issue. Prevention of cardiovascular disease will also provide great value in developing a healthier, more productive society.

The modeled lifetime cost-effectiveness of published adherence-improving interventions for antihypertensive and lipid-lowering medications

OBJECTIVE

 We sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of different interventions that have been shown to improve adherence with antihypertensive and lipid-lowering therapy, by combining a burden of nonadherence model framework with literature-based data on adherence-improving interventions.

METHODS

  MEDLINE was reviewed for studies that evaluated ≥1 adherence intervention compared with a control, used an adherence measure other than self-report, and followed patients for ≥6 months. Effectiveness was assessed as Relative Improvement, ratio of adherence with an intervention versus control. Costs, standardized to 12 months and adjusted to 2007 US$, and effectiveness estimates for each intervention were entered into a previously published model designed to measure the burden of nonadherence with antihypertensive and lipid-lowering medications, in a hypertensive population. Outputs included direct medical costs and incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

 After screening, 23 eligible adherence-improving interventions were identified from 18 studies. Relative Improvement ranged from 1.13 to 3.60. After eliminating more costly/less effective interventions, two remained. Self-monitoring, reminders, and educational materials incurred total health-care costs of $17,520, and compared with no adherence intervention, had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $4984 per QALY gained. Pharmacist/nurse management incurred total health-care costs of $17,896, and versus self-monitoring, reminders, and education had an ICER of $6358 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

 Of published interventions shown to improve adherence, reminders and educational materials, and a pharmacist/nurse management program, appear to be cost-effective and should be considered before other interventions. Understanding relative cost-effectiveness of adherence interventions may guide design and implementation of efficient adherence-improving programs.

The economic consequences of non-adherence to lipid-lowering therapy: results from the Anglo-Scandinavian-Cardiac Outcomes Trial

BACKGROUND

Adherence to lipid-lowering therapy in clinical practice is less than ideal. Analysis of registry data has indicated that this is associated with poor outcomes. The objective of the present analysis was to assess the impact of high adherence to drug (defined as > 80% of days covered), compared with low adherence to drug (< 50% of days covered) in terms of risk of events and long-term economic consequences.

DESIGN

Open-label follow up of a randomised placebo-controlled trial in hypertensive patients.

METHODS

Cox proportional hazards and Poisson regression models were used to assess the hazard ratio of patients with high adherence compared with low adherence while controlling for cardiovascular risk. A Markov model was used to predict the long-term costs and health outcomes associated with poor adherence during the follow-up period.

RESULTS

Both statistical models indicated that high adherence is associated with improved prognosis [Cox model: 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-0.98, Poisson model hazard ratio: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.58-0.98]. Discounted at 3.5% per year, the Markov model predicts that as a consequence of higher adherence during the follow-up period, costs would be higher (1689 pounds per patient compared with 1323 pounds per patient) because of higher drug costs, but the projected survival and quality-adjusted survival (QALY) would also be longer (10.83 compared with 10.81 life years and 8.13 compared with 8.11 QALYs).

CONCLUSION

Given the higher risk of cardiovascular events associated with low adherence shown here, measures to improve adherence are an important part of the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Amlodipine/Atorvastatin: a review of its use in the treatment of hypertension and dyslipidaemia and the prevention of cardiovascular disease

Amlodipine/atorvastatin (Caduet) is a single-tablet, fixed-dose combination of the dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist amlodipine and the HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor atorvastatin. The bioavailability of amlodipine and atorvastatin with a single-tablet, fixed-dose amlodipine/atorvastatin combination was not significantly different to that with coadministered separate amlodipine and atorvastatin tablets. In well controlled clinical trials in patients with hypertension and dyslipidaemia, once-daily amlodipine and atorvastatin (administered as the single-tablet, fixed-dose combination or coadministered as two separate tablets) effectively reduced systolic BP (SBP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, and enabled more patients to achieve BP and LDL-C goals than single-agent or placebo therapy. There was no modification of the effect of amlodipine on SBP when administered in combination with atorvastatin and there was no modification of the effect of atorvastatin on LDL-C when administered in combination with amlodipine. In noncomparative, titration-to-goal, open-label 'real-world' trials, the single-tablet, fixed-dose combination of amlodipine/atorvastatin enabled patients with hypertension and dyslipidaemia to achieve both BP and LDL-C goals. Administration of a single tablet of amlodipine/atorvastatin, compared with coadministration of these agents as two separate tablets, improved patient adherence, according to a retrospective study that utilized prescription refill rates from a large US insurance database. Data from the large, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled ASCOT-LLA trial also demonstrated that the combination of amlodipine-based therapy and atorvastatin was effective in preventing cardiovascular (CV) endpoints in hypertensive patients at risk of CV disease (CVD). In summary, amlodipine/atorvastatin offers a convenient and effective approach to improving adherence and managing CV risk in hypertensive patients with dyslipidaemia or at risk of CVD.