Cost-effectiveness of intensive glycemic control, intensified hypertension control, and serum cholesterol level reduction for type 2 diabetes

CONTEXT

Several treatment interventions can reduce complications of type 2 diabetes, but their relative cost-effectiveness is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of intensive glycemic control (relative to conventional control), intensified hypertension control, and reduction in serum cholesterol level for patients with type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a hypothetical cohort of individuals living in the United States, aged 25 years or older, who were newly diagnosed as having type 2 diabetes. The results of the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) and other studies were used to create a model of disease progression and treatment patterns. Costs were based on those used in community practices in the United States.

INTERVENTIONS

Insulin or sulfonylurea therapy for intensive glycemic control; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or beta-blocker for intensified hypertension control; and pravastatin for reduction of serum cholesterol level.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Costs (in 1997 US dollars) and QALYs were discounted at a 3% annual rate.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for intensive glycemic control is $41 384 per QALY; this ratio increased with age at diagnosis from $9614 per QALY for patients aged 25 to 34 years to $2.1 million for patients aged 85 to 94 years. For intensified hypertension control the cost-effectiveness ratio is -$1959 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness ratio for reduction in serum cholesterol level is $51 889 per QALY; this ratio varied by age at diagnosis and is lowest for patients diagnosed between the ages of 45 and 84 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensified hypertension control reduces costs and improves health outcomes relative to moderate hypertension control. Intensive glycemic control and reduction in serum cholesterol level increase costs and improve health outcomes. The cost-effectiveness ratios for these 2 interventions are comparable with those of several other frequently adopted health care interventions.

Cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 Inhibitor Therapy in Patients With Heterozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia or Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

IMPORTANCE

Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors were recently approved for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and have potential for broad ASCVD prevention. Their long-term cost-effectiveness and effect on total health care spending are uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 inhibitors and their potential effect on US health care spending.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model, a simulation model of US adults aged 35 to 94 years, was used to evaluate cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe in heterozygous FH or ASCVD. The model incorporated 2015 annual PCSK9 inhibitor costs of $14,350 (based on mean wholesale acquisition costs of evolocumab and alirocumab); adopted a health-system perspective, lifetime horizon; and included probabilistic sensitivity analyses to explore uncertainty.

EXPOSURES

Statin therapy compared with addition of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Lifetime major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke), incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and total effect on US health care spending over 5 years.

RESULTS

Adding PCSK9 inhibitors to statins in heterozygous FH was estimated to prevent 316,300 MACE at a cost of $503,000 per QALY gained compared with adding ezetimibe to statins (80% uncertainty interval [UI], $493,000-$1,737,000). In ASCVD, adding PCSK9 inhibitors to statins was estimated to prevent 4.3 million MACE compared with adding ezetimibe at $414,000 per QALY (80% UI, $277,000-$1,539,000). Reducing annual drug costs to $4536 per patient or less would be needed for PCSK9 inhibitors to be cost-effective at less than $100,000 per QALY. At 2015 prices, PCSK9 inhibitor use in all eligible patients was estimated to reduce cardiovascular care costs by $29 billion over 5 years, but drug costs increased by an estimated $592 billion (a 38% increase over 2015 prescription drug expenditures). In contrast, initiating statins in these high-risk populations in all statin-tolerant individuals who are not currently using statins was estimated to save $12 billion.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Assuming 2015 prices, PCSK9 inhibitor use in patients with heterozygous FH or ASCVD did not meet generally acceptable incremental cost-effectiveness thresholds and was estimated to increase US health care costs substantially. Reducing annual drug prices from more than $14,000 to $4536 would be necessary to meet a $100,000 per QALY threshold.

The business case for quality: case studies and an analysis

The financial implications of implementing quality improvements are often poorly understood. Simply put, does improving quality yield a return on investment? We examine four cases--management of high-cost pharmaceuticals, diabetes management, smoking cessation, and wellness programs in the workplace--to understand the financial and clinical implications of improving care. We explore costs and benefits, in both the short and the long term, to four stakeholders with different and sometimes conflicting interests: providers, purchasers and employers, individual patients, and society. Finally, we recommend policy changes to better align financial incentives for superior quality of care.

Cost effectiveness of simvastatin treatment to lower cholesterol levels in patients with coronary heart disease. Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group

BACKGROUND

The Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) showed that lowering cholesterol levels with simvastatin reduces mortality and morbidity in patients with angina pectoris or previous acute myocardial infarction. Before the widespread use of cholesterol-lowering drugs in such patients is recommended, its cost effectiveness should be demonstrated. We estimated the cost effectiveness of simvastatin treatment to lower cholesterol levels in relation to the age, sex, and cholesterol level before treatment of patients with coronary heart disease.

METHODS

We estimated the cost per year of life gained with simvastatin therapy. To model the increased life expectancy, hazard functions from 4S were used. The costs studied included those of the intervention and the direct and indirect costs associated with morbidity from coronary causes. We prepared separate estimates for men and women at various ages (from 35 to 70 years) and total cholesterol levels before treatment (213 to 309 mg per deciliter).

RESULTS

In the analysis limited to direct costs, the cost of each year of life gained ranged from $3,800 for 70-year-old men with 309 mg of cholesterol per deciliter to $27,400 for 35-year-old women with 213 mg of cholesterol per deciliter. When we included indirect costs, the results ranged from a savings in the youngest patients to a cost of $13,300 per year of life gained in 70-year-old women with 213 mg of cholesterol per deciliter.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with coronary heart disease, simvastatin therapy is cost effective among both men and women at the ages and cholesterol levels studied.

Cost-effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapies according to selected patient characteristics

BACKGROUND

The National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel II) recommends treatment guidelines based on cholesterol level and number of risk factors.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate how the cost-effectiveness ratios of cholesterol-lowering therapies vary according to different risk factors.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Published data.

TARGET POPULATION

Women and men 35 to 84 years of age with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels of 4.1 mmol/L or greater (> or =160 mg/dL), divided into 240 risk subgroups according to age, sex, and the presence or absence of four coronary heart disease risk factors (smoking status, blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level).

TIME HORIZON

30 years.

PERSPECTIVE

Societal.

INTERVENTIONS

Step I diet, statin therapy, and no preventive treatment for primary and secondary prevention.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for primary prevention with step I diet ranged from $1900 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained to $500000 per QALY depending on risk subgroup characteristics. Primary prevention with a statin compared with diet therapy was $54000 per QALY to $1400000 per QALY. Secondary prevention with a statin cost less than $50000 per QALY for all risk subgroups.

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

The inclusion of niacin as a primary prevention option resulted in much less favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for primary prevention with a statin (>$500000 per QALY).

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies varies significantly when adjusted for age, sex, and the presence or absence of additional risk factors. Primary prevention with a step I diet seems to be cost-effective for most risk subgroups but may not be cost-effective for otherwise healthy young women. Primary prevention with a statin may not be cost-effective for younger men and women with few risk factors, given the option of secondary prevention and of primary prevention in older age ranges. Secondary prevention with a statin seems to be cost-effective for all risk subgroups and is cost-saving in some high-risk subgroups.

Cost and health implications of cholesterol lowering

BACKGROUND

A broad, scientific consensus supports the role of cholesterol as a risk factor for coronary heart disease and agrees that lowering cholesterol levels will reduce coronary heart disease incidence. Cost-effectiveness analysis is a potentially powerful method for measuring the benefits to be achieved by expenditures of health care dollars.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The literature related to the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cholesterol lowering was reviewed. Application of cost-effectiveness methodology to the question of cholesterol reduction generally supports the use of population-wide educational programs and the aggressive use of cholesterol-lowering therapy for the secondary prevention of subsequent coronary events in persons with preexisting coronary heart disease. For primary prevention, however, therapy with medication has a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio only in identifiable high-risk persons, and the different costs of the various available medications should be taken into account. Therapy with medications, especially for primary prevention, would be more appealing if the price of the available medications were lower.

CONCLUSIONS

High priority should be given to research that could validate these cost-effectiveness projections as well as to further studies of the elderly and women, in whom direct data on the precise costs, risks, and benefits of interventions to lower cholesterol remain sparse.

Comparison of properties of four inhibitors of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase

Four inhibitors of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase have been approved for treatment of hypercholesterolemia. Three of these are fungal metabolites or derivatives thereof: lovastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin. The fourth, fluvastatin, is totally synthetic. Its structure, containing a fluorophenyl-substituted indole ring, is distinct from that of the fungal metabolites. Lovastatin and simvastatin are administered as prodrugs, which undergo in vivo transformation to active inhibitory forms; fluvastatin and pravastatin are administered as active agents. The HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors are all effective in reducing plasma concentrations of low density lipoprotein. They have differing pharmacokinetic properties, which may be of importance in some patients. All of these drugs are very well tolerated, and there do not appear to be major differences in toxicity or adverse effects. When LDL reductions > 30% are needed, simvastatin is the most cost-effective HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor. However, these drugs are most commonly used in dosages that reduce LDL-C by 20-30%. For this degree of LDL reduction, fluvastatin is the most cost-effective HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor.

Updated Cost-effectiveness Analysis of PCSK9 Inhibitors Based on the Results of the FOURIER Trial

This study uses the results of the FOURIER trial to assess the current cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 inhibitors over the lifetime analytic horizon for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the United States.

Atorvastatin: an updated review of its pharmacological properties and use in dyslipidaemia

Atorvastatin is a synthetic hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor. In dosages of 10 to 80 mg/day, atorvastatin reduces levels of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, triglyceride and very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL)-cholesterol and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol in patients with a wide variety of dyslipidaemias. In large long-term trials in patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia. atorvastatin produced greater reductions in total cholesterol. LDL-cholesterol and triglyceride levels than other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. In patients with coronary heart disease (CHD), atorvastatin was more efficacious than lovastatin, pravastatin. fluvastatin and simvastatin in achieving target LDL-cholesterol levels and, in high doses, produced very low LDL-cholesterol levels. Aggressive reduction of serum LDL-cholesterol to 1.9 mmol/L with atorvastatin 80 mg/day for 16 weeks in patients with acute coronary syndromes significantly reduced the incidence of the combined primary end-point events and the secondary end-point of recurrent ischaemic events requiring rehospitalisation in the large. well-designed MIRACL trial. In the AVERT trial, aggressive lipid-lowering therapy with atorvastatin 80 mg/ day for 18 months was at least as effective as coronary angioplasty and usual care in reducing the incidence of ischaemic events in low-risk patients with stable CHD. Long-term studies are currently investigating the effects of atorvastatin on serious cardiac events and mortality in patients with CHD. Pharmacoeconomic studies have shown lipid-lowering with atorvastatin to be cost effective in patients with CHD, men with at least one risk factor for CHD and women with multiple risk factors for CHD. In available studies atorvastatin was more cost effective than most other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors in achieving target LDL-cholesterol levels. Atorvastatin is well tolerated and adverse events are usually mild and transient. The tolerability profile of atorvastatin is similar to that of other available HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors and to placebo. Elevations of liver transaminases and creatine phosphokinase are infrequent. There have been rare case reports of rhabdomyolysis occurring with concomitant use of atorvastatin and other drugs.

CONCLUSION

Atorvastatin is an appropriate first-line lipid-lowering therapy in numerous groups of patients at low to high risk of CHD. Additionally it has a definite role in treating patients requiring greater decreases in LDL-cholesterol levels. Long-term studies are under way to determine whether achieving very low LDL-cholesterol levels with atorvastatin is likely to show additional benefits on morbidity and mortality in patients with CHD.

The West of Scotland coronary prevention study: economic benefit analysis of primary prevention with pravastatin

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the economic efficiency of using pravastatin to prevent the transition from health to cardiovascular disease in men with hypercholesterolaemia.

DESIGN

Economic benefit analysis based on data from the West of Scotland coronary prevention study. Treatment specific hazards of developing cardiovascular disease according to various definitions were estimated. Scottish record linkage data provided disease specific survival. Cost estimates were based on extracontractual tariffs and event specific average lengths of stay calculated from the West of Scotland coronary prevention study.

SUBJECTS

Men with hypercholesterolaemia similar to the subjects in the West of Scotland coronary prevention study.

MAIN OUTCOME

Cost consequences, the number of transitions from health to cardiovascular disease prevented, the number needed to start treatment, and cost per life year gained.

RESULTS

If 10,000 of these men started taking pravastatin, 318 of them would not make the transition from health to cardiovascular disease (number needed to treat, 31.4), at a net discounted cost of 20m Pounds over 5 years. These benefits imply an undiscounted gain of 2,460 years of life, and thus 8121 Pounds per life year gained, or 20,375 Pounds per life year gained if benefits are discounted. Restriction to the 40% of men at highest risk reduces the number needed to treat to 22.5 (5601 Pounds per life year gained (undiscounted) and 13,995 Pounds per life year gained (discounted)).

CONCLUSIONS

In subjects without evidence of prior myocardial infarction but who have hypercholesterolaemia, the use of pravastatin yields substantial health benefits at a cost that is not prohibitive overall and can be quite efficient in selected high risk subgroups.

Foundations for blockbuster drugs in federally sponsored research

'Blockbuster' drugs, which are widely prescribed and improve the health of millions, often originate in fundamental laboratory research. An important example of such drugs are the cholesterol-lowering drugs called 'statins', including Zocor, Pravachol, and Lipitor, which millions of people take in the U.S. every year. This short paper outlines the direct and indirect contributions of federally sponsored research to the development of these important drugs.

Cost effectiveness of lowering cholesterol concentration with statins in patients with and without pre-existing coronary heart disease: life table method applied to health authority population

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the cost effectiveness of statins in lowering serum cholesterol concentration in people at varying risk of fatal cardiovascular disease and to explore the implications of changing the criteria for intervention on cost and cost effectiveness for a purchasing authority.

DESIGN

A life table method was used to model the effect of treatment with a statin on survival over 10 years in men and women aged 45-64. The costs of intervention were estimated from the direct costs of treatment, offset by savings associated with a reduction in coronary angiographies, non-fatal myocardial infarctions, and revascularisation procedures. The robustness of the model to various assumptions was tested in a sensitivity analysis.

SETTING

Population of a typical district health authority.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Cost per life year saved.

RESULTS

The average cost effectiveness of treating men aged 45-64 with no history of coronary heart disease and a cholesterol concentration > 6.5 mmol/l for 10 years with a statin was 136,000 pounds per life year saved. The average cost effectiveness for patients with pre-existing coronary heart disease and a cholesterol concentration > 5.4 mmol/l was 32,000 pounds. These averages hide enormous differences in cost effectiveness between groups at different risk, ranging from 6000 pounds per life year in men aged 55-64 who have had a myocardial infarction and whose cholesterol concentration is above 7.2 mmol/l to 361,000 pounds per life year saved in women aged 45-54 with angina and a cholesterol concentration of 5.5-6.0 mmol/l.

CONCLUSIONS

Lowering serum cholesterol concentration in patients with and without preexisting coronary heart disease is effective and safe, but treatment for all those in whom treatment is likely to be effective is not sustainable within current NHS resources. Data on cost effectiveness data should be taken into account when assessing who should be eligible for treatment.

Using the coronary artery calcium score to guide statin therapy: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

The coronary artery calcium (CAC) score predicts future coronary heart disease (CHD) events and could be used to guide primary prevention interventions, but CAC measurement has costs and exposes patients to low-dose radiation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We estimated the cost-effectiveness of measuring CAC and prescribing statin therapy based on the resulting score under a range of assumptions using an established model enhanced with CAC distribution and risk estimates from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Ten years of statin treatment for 10,000 55-year-old women with high cholesterol (10-year CHD risk, 7.5%) was projected to prevent 32 myocardial infarctions, cause 70 cases of statin-induced myopathy, and add 1108 years to total life expectancy. Measuring CAC and targeting statin treatment to the 2500 women with CAC>0 would provide 45% of the benefit (+501 life-years), but CAC measurement would cost $2.25 million and cause 9 radiation-induced cancers. Treat all was preferable to CAC screening in this scenario and across a broad range of other scenarios (CHD risk, 2.5%-15%) when statin assumptions were favorable ($0.13 per pill and no quality of life penalty). When statin assumptions were less favorable ($1.00 per pill and disutility=0.00384), CAC screening with statin treatment for persons with CAC>0 was cost-effective (<$50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year) in this scenario, in 55-year-old men with CHD risk 7.5%, and in other intermediate risk scenarios (CHD risk, 5%-10%). Our results were critically sensitive to statin cost and disutility and relatively robust to other assumptions. Alternate CAC treatment thresholds (>100 or >300) were generally not cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

CAC testing in intermediate risk patients can be cost-effective but only if statins are costly or significantly affect quality of life.

Cost-effectiveness of simvastatin in people at different levels of vascular disease risk: economic analysis of a randomised trial in 20,536 individuals

BACKGROUND

Statin therapy reduces the rates of heart attack, stroke, and revascularisation among a wide range of individuals. Reliable assessment of its cost-effectiveness in different circumstances is needed.

METHODS

20,536 adults (aged 40-80 years) with vascular disease or diabetes were randomly allocated 40 mg simvastatin daily (10,269) or placebo (10,267) for an average of 5 years. Comparisons were made of hospitalisation and statin costs (2001 UK prices) during the scheduled treatment period between all simvastatin-allocated versus all placebo-allocated participants. Cost-effectiveness was estimated among different categories of participant.

FINDINGS

Allocation to simvastatin was associated with a highly significant 22% (95% CI 16-27; p<0.0001) proportional reduction in hospitalisation costs for all vascular events, with similar proportional reductions in every subcategory of participant studied. During an average of 5 years, estimated absolute reductions in vascular event costs per person allocated 40 mg simvastatin daily ranged from UK 847 pounds sterling (SE 137) in the highest risk quintile studied to 264 pounds sterling (48) in the lowest. Mean excess cost of statin therapy among participants allocated simvastatin was 1497 pounds sterling (8), with similar absolute increases in every subcategory. Costs of preventing a major vascular event with 40 mg simvastatin daily ranged from 4500 pounds sterling (95% CI 2300-7400) among participants with a 42% 5-year major vascular event rate to 31,100 pounds sterling (22,900-42,500) among those with a 12% rate (corresponding to 5-year major coronary event rates of 22% and 4%, respectively).

INTERPRETATION

Statin therapy is cost effective for a wider range of individuals with vascular disease or diabetes than previously recognised (particularly with lower-priced generics). It would be appropriate to consider reducing the estimated level of vascular event risk at which statin therapy is recommended.

Cost-effectiveness of cholesterol lowering. Results from the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S)

An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of simvastatin was conducted, based on the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). The total cost of hospitalization in the placebo group was 52.8 million Swedish kronor (SEK) (5.15 million pounds), compared with SEK 36.0 million (3.51 million pounds) in the simvastatin group. This amounts to a 32% reduction, or a saving of SEK 16.8 million (1.6 million pounds) or SEK 7560 (738 pounds) per patient. The net cost per patient for the duration of the study (5.4 years) was SEK 13,540 (1324 pounds). Simvastatin treatment saved an estimated 0.377 undiscounted life years (0.240 life years discounted at 5% per annum). The cost of simvastatin therapy per discounted life-year saved was therefore SEK 56,400 (5502 pounds). Sensitivity analysis, examining the effect of different life expectancies, costs of initiation and monitoring of simvastatin therapy, and discount rates, showed the results to be stable. Conclusion. The cost per life-year saved of simvastatin in the treatment of post-myocardial infarction and angina patients, as determined from 4S data, is well within the range normally considered cost-effective.

Fluvastatin: a review of its pharmacology and use in the management of hypercholesterolaemia

Fluvastatin, a member of the group of drugs known as HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, is used in the treatment of patients with hypercholesterolaemia. In clinical trials in patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia, fluvastatin 20 or 40 mg/day achieved marked reductions from baseline in serum levels of low density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol (19 to 31%) and total cholesterol (15 to 21%), along with modest declines in serum triglyceride levels (1 to 12%) and small increases in high density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol levels (2 to 10%). These beneficial effects on the serum lipid profile were similar to those demonstrated with other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, although direct comparative trials are limited. Concomitant administration of fluvastatin plus another lipid-lowering agent, such as a bile acid sequestrant, a fibrate or nicotinic acid, usually reduced serum levels of total cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol by at least a further 5 to 10% from baseline compared with fluvastatin monotherapy. Fluvastatin has a similar tolerability profile to that of other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. Gastrointestinal disturbances, which are usually mild and transient, were the most frequently reported adverse events with fluvastatin in clinical trials. Persistent elevation of serum transaminase levels occurred in approximately 1% of fluvastatin recipients, which is similar to the rate for other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. Unlike other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, which have been infrequently associated with myopathy and rarely with rhabdomyolysis, these events have not been associated with fluvastatin to date, although fluvastatin has not been used as extensively as agents such as lovastatin. HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors other than fluvastatin, when given in combination with drugs such as fibrates, nicotinic acid, cyclosporin or erythromycin, can increase the risk of these potentially serious adverse events. Thus far, myopathy or rhabdomyolysis have not been reported among patients receiving fluvastatin concomitantly with any of these drugs. Therefore, fluvastatin can be given with caution in combination with fibrates, nicotinic acid, cyclosporin or erythromycin. In conclusion, fluvastatin has similar efficacy and tolerability profiles to other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, which are among the most effective agents available for treating patients with hypercholesterolaemia. Pharmacoeconomic studies performed to date suggest an advantage for fluvastatin over other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, predominantly because of its relatively low acquisition costs (at least in those countries in which the evaluations were conducted). Thus, fluvastatin is effective and well tolerated in patients with hypercholesterolaemia and appears to have an economic advantage over other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, primarily as a result of its relatively low acquisition costs.

Cost-effectiveness of pravastatin therapy for survivors of myocardial infarction with average cholesterol levels

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of pravastatin therapy in survivors of myocardial infarction with average cholesterol levels.

METHODS

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis based on actual clinical, cost, and health-related quality-of-life data from the Cholesterol and Recurrent Events (CARE) trial. Survival and recurrent coronary heart disease events were modeled from trial data in Markov models, with the use of different assumptions regarding the long-term benefit of therapy.

RESULTS

Pravastatin therapy increased quality-adjusted life expectancy at an incremental cost of $16,000 to $32,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. In subgroup analyses, the cost-effectiveness of pravastatin therapy was more favorable for patients >60 years of age and for patients with pretreatment low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels >125 mg/dL. Results were sensitive to the cost of pravastatin and to assumptions about long-term survival benefits from pravastatin therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness of pravastatin therapy in survivors of myocardial infarction with average cholesterol levels compares favorably with other interventions.

Clinical and cost outcomes of medical nutrition therapy for hypercholesterolemia: a controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the results and cost-effectiveness of a cholesterol lowering protocol implemented by registered dietitians with cholesterol lowering advice by physicians.

DESIGN

Six month randomized controlled trial, cost-effectiveness analysis. Subjects included 90 ambulatory care patients (60 men, 30 women), age range 21 to 65 years, with hypercholesterolemia and not taking hypolipidemic drugs. Patients were randomly assigned to receive medical nutrition therapy (MNT) from dietitians using a NCEP based lowering protocol or usual care (UC) from physicians. Outcome measures were plasma lipid profiles, dietary intake, weight, activity, patient satisfaction, and costs of MNT. Changes from baseline for each variable of interest were compared between treatment groups using analysis of covariance controlling for baseline value of the variable and gender.

RESULTS

MNT achieved a 6% decrease in total and LDL cholesterol levels at 3 and 6 months compared with a 1% increase and a 2% decrease in both values at 3 and 6 months with UC (P<.001 and P<.05, respectively). Weight loss (1.9 vs 0 kg, P<.001) and dietary intake of saturated fat (7% of energy vs 10%, P<.001) were better in the MNT than the UC group. The additional costs of MNT were $217 per patient to achieve a 6% reduction in cholesterol and $98 per patient to sustain the reduction. The cost-effectiveness ratio for MNT was $36 per 1% decrease in cholesterol and LDL level.

APPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

MNT from registered dietitians is a reasonable investment of resources because it results in significantly better lipid, diet, activity, weight, and patient satisfaction outcomes than UC.

Use of ezetimibe in the United States and Canada

BACKGROUND

Ezetimibe lowers low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, but current lipid-lowering guidelines in the United States and Canada do not recommend it as a first option for either primary or secondary prevention. We sought to describe the adoption of ezetimibe relative to that of other lipid-lowering agents and compare its use in the two countries.

METHODS

We conducted a population-level, cohort study using data from January 2002 to December 2006, provided by IMS Health, to describe prescribing practices and expenditures for lipid-lowering agents and ezetimibe in the United States and Canada.

RESULTS

From 2002 to 2006, the monthly number of prescriptions for lipid-lowering agents rose from 3719 to 7401 per 100,000 population in Canada and from 3927 to 6827 per 100,000 population in the United States. Of these prescriptions, the proportion for ezetimibe rose from 0.2% in 2003 to 3.4% in 2006 in Canada and from 0.1% in 2002 to 15.2% in 2006 in the United States. Statin use was relatively constant between 2002 and 2006 in Canada, whereas the proportion of statin prescriptions decreased from 86.5 to 80.8% in the United States. In 2006, the ratio of prescriptions for statins to those for ezetimibe was 26:1 in Canada and 5:1 in the United States. In 2006, expenditures for ezetimibe per 100,000 population were higher in the United States than in Canada by a factor of more than 4.

CONCLUSIONS

Distinct patterns of use of ezetimibe emerged in the United States and Canada from 2002 to 2006, a difference that markedly altered the approach to the treatment of hyperlipidemia in the United States. The U.S. pattern increased overall costs, but the effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain.

Lipid-modifying therapy and attainment of cholesterol goals in Europe: the Return on Expenditure Achieved for Lipid Therapy (REALITY) study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have been conducted in actual clinical practice settings to evaluate the ways in which dyslipidemia is managed using lipid-modifying therapies.

OBJECTIVE

To determine lipid-modifying therapy practices and their effects on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and/or total cholesterol (TC) goal attainment in Europeans based on prevailing guidelines at the time of therapy in each country.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort analysis involving 58,223 patients initiated on lipid-modifying therapies in 10 European countries, with a median patient follow-up on lipid-modifying therapy of 15.3 months. Data on prescriptions of lipid-modifying therapies, laboratory data including LDL-C and TC, achievement of cholesterol goals for LDL-C and/or TC, and hospitalizations were obtained from healthcare administrative databases and/or patient chart reviews.

RESULTS

Across Europe, statin monotherapy was the initial lipid-modifying treatment in 51,786 (89.3%) of 58,009 patients with available data. In addition, 38,853 (89.5%) of 43,410 patients with available follow-up statin potency data were initiated on statin regimens of medium or lower equipotency. Low-equipotency regimens include atorvastatin 5 mg, simvastatin 10 mg, and pravastatin 20 mg, whereas medium-equipotency regimens include atorvastatin 10 mg, simvastatin 20 mg, and pravastatin 40 mg. Regimens were adjusted to higher equipotency via either up-titration or switches to combination regimens in 16.2% of patients. On average, 40.5% of patients across Europe who were not initially at guideline recommended cholesterol goals (either LDL-C or TC) and had follow-up data attained recommended cholesterol levels, including <30% of patients in Spain, Italy, or Hungary. In many countries, the likelihood of goal attainment was inversely associated with baseline cardiovascular risk and/or LDL-C levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Lipid management strategies in Europe during the study period were dominated by statin monotherapy. Even after prolonged follow-up on lipid-modifying therapy, approximately 60% of Europeans studied did not achieve guideline recommended cholesterol goals. Future emphasis must be placed on subsequent lipid panel monitoring, as well as the use of more efficacious, well-tolerated lipid-modifying therapies such as dual cholesterol inhibitors to enable more European patients to attain their recommended cholesterol goals.

The clinical and economic burden of nonadherence with antihypertensive and lipid-lowering therapy in hypertensive patients

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine lifetime costs, morbidity, and mortality associated with varying adherence to antihypertensive and 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statin) therapy in a hypertensive population.

METHODS

A model was constructed to compare costs and outcomes under three adherence scenarios: no treatment, ideal adherence, and real-world adherence. Simulated patients' characteristics matched those of participants in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Lipid-Lowering Arm and event probabilities were calculated with Framingham Heart Study risk equations. The real-world adherence scenario employed adherence data from an observational study of a US population; risk reductions at each level of adherence were based on linear extrapolations from clinical trials. Outputs included life expectancy, frequencies of primary and secondary coronary heart disease and stroke, and direct medical costs in 2006 US$. The incremental cost per life-year gained and incremental cost per event avoided were calculated comparing the three adherence scenarios.

RESULTS

Mean life expectancy was 14.73 years (no-treatment scenario), 15.07 (real-world adherence), and 15.49 (ideal adherence). The average number of cardiovascular events per patients was 0.738 (no treatment), 0.610 (real-world adherence), and 0.441 (ideal adherence). The incremental cost of real-world adherence versus no treatment is $30,585 per life-year gained, and ideal adherence versus real-world adherence is $22,121 per life-year gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypertensive patients taking antihypertensive and statin therapy at real-world adherence levels can be expected to receive approximately 50% of the potential benefit seen in clinical trials. Depending on its cost, the incremental benefits of an effective adherence intervention program could make it an attractive value.

Updated Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Evolocumab in Patients With Very High-risk Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

Importance

In October 2018, evolocumab was made available at a reduced annual list price of $5850 in the United States. This 60% reduction was aimed at improving patient access by lowering patient copays. Shortly thereafter, the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol management guideline was released. An updated cost-effectiveness analysis of evolocumab in the United States may be therefore of interest to payers and prescribers.

Objective

To present an updated cost-effectiveness analysis of evolocumab added to standard background therapy compared with standard background therapy alone in patients with very high-risk atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, reflecting the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline definition and using the new evolocumab list price.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This study used the Markov model originally used in a previous study by Fonarow et al in 2017. A US societal perspective was considered, and a range of baseline cardiovascular event rates were modeled to reflect varying risk profiles in clinical practice within patients with very high-risk atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

Exposures

Addition of evolocumab to standard background therapy, including maximally tolerated statin therapy (ie, the maximum intensity of statin therapy a patient can safely receive), with or without ezetimibe.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Major cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death), costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

Results

Evolocumab was associated with both increased costs and improved outcomes when added to standard background therapy. Incremental costs ranged from $22 228 to $3411, depending on the varying level of risk within the defined population. Incremental quality-adjusted life years ranged from 0.39 to 0.44. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from $56 655 to $7667 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. For a range of baseline cardiovascular event rates in patients with very high-risk atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below the generally accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds. Moreover, the ratios were below the threshold of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life-years gained for any baseline rate of 6.9 or more events per 100 patient-years.

Conclusions and Relevance

At its current list price, the addition of evolocumab to standard background therapy meets accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds across a range of baseline cardiovascular event rates in patients with very high-risk atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease as defined by the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline.

Maximizing the cost-effectiveness of lipid-lowering therapy

Cardiovascular disease, including coronary heart disease, is the leading cause of death both in men and in women in the United States. The purpose of this review is to describe the effectiveness of lipid-lowering therapy in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, which has recently been extended to patients with mild to moderate hypercholesterolemia, and the cost of providing therapy, which would be prohibitive if all persons with hypercholesterolemia received treatment. Cost-effectiveness analysis provides a rational means of allocating limited health care resources by allowing the comparison of the costs of lipid-lowering therapy, in particular, therapy with beta-hydroxy-beta-methylglutaryl-CoA (coenzyme A) reductase inhibitors (statins), with the costs of atherosclerosis that could be prevented by lowering cholesterol. To extend the benefits of treatment to the large number of persons not receiving therapy, we need to implement more cost-effective treatment by improving risk assessment, increasing treatment effectiveness, and reducing the cost of therapy.

Evaluation of the clinical outcomes of switching patients from atorvastatin to simvastatin and losartan to candesartan in a primary care setting: 2 years on

AIMS

This short report was designed to provide 2-year follow-up data from a previous study carried out in a primary care practice in the UK to assess the clinical and practical implications of switching to generic drugs.

METHODS

All patients previously switched from atorvastatin to simvastatin or losartan to candesartan were reviewed retrospectively 2 years after the switch. Total serum cholesterol and clinic blood pressure readings were used along with records of cardiovascular events occuring during the 2 year period to assess the clinical impact of the switch.

RESULTS

Of the 69 patients switched from atorvastatin to simvastatin between March and September 2005, 65 are still registered at the practice. Of these, 61 (94%) are still on simvastatin and 58 (89%) on the same dose. There was no significant change in mean total cholesterol over this 2 year period [between 4.04 +/- 0.52 mmol/l prior to the switch and 3.90 +/- 0.63 mmol/l 2 years after the switch (p = 0.06)]. Of the 108 patients switched from losartan to candesartan, 94 are still registered at the practice and taking an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), 92 of these (98%) are still on candesartan and there was a significant reduction in blood pressure 2 years post-switch [between 138/79 +/- 12.9/6.6 prior to the switch and 131/77 +/- 13.1/7.6 mmHg 2 years after the switch (p<<0.05)]. No adverse events attributable to the switch were reported in either group.

CONCLUSION

This small study provides evidence that switching drugs in primary care can be cost effective and safe in the medium term, if care is taken with selection of patients and there is structured follow-up in place.