The economic impact of hypercholesterolemia and mixed dyslipidemia: A systematic review of cost of illness studies

Hypercholesterolemia is a clinically relevant condition with an ascertained role in atherogenesis. In particular, its presence directly correlates to the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). As known, cardiovascular diseases pose a significant economic burden worldwide; however, a clear picture of the economic impact of ASCVD secondary to hypercholesterolemia is lacking. This study aiming at conducting a systematic review of the current literature to assess the economic impact of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), non-familial hypercholesterolemia (non-FH) or mixed dyslipidemia. A literature search was performed in Medline/PubMed and Embase database up to September 1st, 2020, exploring evidence published from 2010. The literature review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. To be included the studies must be conducted on people who have been diagnosed with familial hypercholesterolemia, non-familial hypercholesterolemia or mixed dyslipidemia, and report data/information on costs attributable to these conditions and their sequelae. A total of 1260 studies were retrieved. After reading the titles and abstract, 103 studies were selected for full reading and eight met the criteria for inclusion. All but one studies were published in the American continent, with the majority conducted in US. An observational design with a prevalence approach were used and all estimated the economic burden of CVD. Direct cost estimates as annual average health expenditure on all population, ranging from $17 to $259 million. Few studies assessing the economic impact of hypercholesterolemia are available in the literature and new researches are needed to provide a more updated and reliable picture. Despite this scarceness of evidence, this review adds important data for future discussion on the knowledge of the economic impact of hypercholesterolemia and costs of care associated to this condition, with important implication for public health researches and novel therapies implementation.

Cost-Effectiveness of Alirocumab in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes: The ODYSSEY OUTCOMES Trial

BACKGROUND

Cholesterol reduction with proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 inhibitors reduces ischemic events; however, the cost-effectiveness in statin-treated patients with recent acute coronary syndrome remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine whether further cholesterol reduction with alirocumab would be cost-effective in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome on optimal statin therapy.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness model leveraging patient-level data from ODYSSEY OUTCOMES (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) was developed to estimate costs and outcomes over a lifetime horizon. Patients (n = 18,924) had a recent acute coronary syndrome and were on high-intensity or maximum-tolerated statin therapy, with a baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level ≥70 mg/dl, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥100 mg/dl, or apolipoprotein B ≥80 mg/l. Alirocumab 75 mg or placebo was administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks. Alirocumab was blindly titrated to 150 mg if LDL-C remained ≥50 mg/dl or switched to placebo if 2 consecutive LDL-C levels were <15 mg/dl. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was determined with the addition of alirocumab versus placebo and, based on clinical efficacy findings from the trial, was stratified by baseline LDL-C levels ≥100 mg/dl and <100 mg/dl.

RESULTS

Across the overall population recruited to the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial, using an annual treatment cost of US$5,850, the mean overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$92,200 per QALY (base case). The cost was US$41,800 per QALY in patients with baseline LDL-C ≥100 mg/dl, whereas in those with LDL-C <100 mg/dl the cost per QALY was US$299,400. Among patients with LDL-C ≥100 mg/dl, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios remained below US$100,000 per QALY across a wide variety of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome on optimal statin therapy, alirocumab improves cardiovascular outcomes at costs considered intermediate value, with good value in patients with baseline LDL-C ≥100 mg/dl but less economic value with LDL-C <100 mg/dl. (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab [ODYSSEY OUTCOMES]; NCT01663402).

How Low to Go With Lipid-Lowering Therapies in a Cost-effective and Prudent Manner

The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol was a landmark document guiding health care professionals around the globe on how to administer lipid-lowering therapies. Those guidelines were primarily focused on statin therapy benefit groups. The writing committee found insufficient evidence for specific low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) treatment targets. There have been many important updates in the lipid literature since the publication of that document. Most importantly, clinical trials have provided definitive evidence for the pivotal role of LDL-C in atherogenesis and the improvement in clinical outcomes by means of aggressive LDL-C reduction. Ezetimibe, evolocumab, and alirocumab treatment resulted in substantial reductions in major adverse cardiovascular outcomes. These data encourage a discussion on whether LDL-C targets are warranted in primary and/or secondary prevention, and if so, how low should those targets be. In order to answer such questions, the costs and safety of such therapies, as well as the safety of very low levels of LDL-C need to be addressed. This review discusses the relationship between LDL-C lowering and cardiovascular risk reduction, the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of high-intensity lipid-lowering therapies, and the recommendations from the most recent lipid guidelines.

Are PCSK9 Inhibitors Cost Effective?

The objective of this study was to review available health economic evaluations of PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitors. These drugs reduce low-density lipid cholesterol levels and cardiovascular risk, but their cost effectiveness has been questioned. We searched Medline and Embase for economic evaluations in any language at any time. Studies were included if they analysed any PCSK9 inhibitor compared with either statin alone or in combination with ezetimibe or any other therapy considered standard prior to the introduction of PCSK9 inhibitors. We found ten full health economic evaluations of PCSK9 inhibitors, two from Europe and eight from the United States (US). Six of the eight from the US were from two different consortia that analysed PCSK9 inhibitors at different stages through the development of evidence. All studies generally reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios above suggested thresholds for cost effectiveness, except one study from Spain. The results of this review indicate that PCSK9 inhibitors in general are not cost effective at the current prices, but lower prices may change the results.

Cost-effectiveness and Budget Impact of Treatment with Evolocumab Versus Statins and Ezetimibe for Hypercholesterolemia in Spain

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

To analyze the cost-effectiveness ratio and budget impact of treatment with evolocumab (PCSK9 inhibitor) for patients in secondary prevention in the Spanish National Health System.

METHODS

A budget impact analysis, decision tree and Markov models were designed under the public health system perspective, based on the only study with morbidity and mortality data (FOURIER). The alternatives compared were evolocumab vs statins, and dual therapy with ezetimibe in 5% of the population. The measure of effectiveness used was the number of cardiovascular events avoided. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The average annual cost of patients receiving evolocumab was 11 134.78€ and 393.83€ for standard treatment (statins plus ezetimibe). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was > 600 000 € per avoided cardiovascular event for both assessed outcomes (first: cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and hospitalization due to unstable angina or coronary revascularization; second: includes the first 3 events). To perform the 10-year Markov model, the average cost of standard treatment was 13 948.45€ vs 471 417.37€ with evolocumab. Treatment with evolocumab for patients with familial hypercholesterolemia would cost between 3 and 6.1 million euros, assuming a difference of 2.5 and 5.1 million euros with the standard treatment (2017). This difference would be between 204.3 and 1364.7 million euros (2021) for those with nonfamiliar hypercholesterolemia (secondary prevention).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with evolocumab is associated with a lower frequency of cardiovascular events, but is inefficient for patients suitable to receive this drug in the Spanish National Health System.

Effects of Transitioning to Medicare Part D on Access to Drugs for Medical Conditions among Dual Enrollees with Cancer

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of transitioning from Medicaid to Medicare Part D drug coverage on the use of noncancer treatments among dual enrollees with cancer.

METHODS

We leveraged a representative 5% national sample of all fee-for-service dual enrollees in the United States (2004-2007) to evaluate the impact of the removal of caps on the number of reimbursable prescriptions per month (drug caps) under Part D on 1) prevalence and 2) average days' supply dispensed for antidepressants, antihypertensives, and lipid-lowering agents overall and by race (white and black).

RESULTS

The removal of drug caps was associated with increased use of lipid-lowering medications (days' supply 3.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.57-5.70). Among blacks in capped states, we observed increased use of lipid-lowering therapy (any use 0.08 percentage points; 95% CI 0.05-0.10; and days' supply 4.01; 95% CI 2.92-5.09) and antidepressants (days' supply 2.20; 95% CI 0.61-3.78) and increasing trends in antihypertensive use (any use 0.01 percentage points; 95% CI 0.004-0.01; and days' supply 1.83; 95% CI 1.25-2.41). The white-black gap in the use of lipid-lowering medications was immediately reduced (-0.09 percentage points; 95% CI -0.15 to -0.04). We also observed a reversal in trends toward widening white-black differences in antihypertensive use (level -0.08 percentage points; 95% CI -0.12 to -0.05; and trend -0.01 percentage points; 95% CI -0.02 to -0.01) and antidepressant use (-0.004 percentage points; 95% CI -0.01 to -0.0004).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that the removal of drug caps under Part D had a modest impact on the treatment of hypercholesterolemia overall and may have reduced white-black gaps in the use of lipid-lowering and antidepressant therapies.

Cholesterol Control Among Uninsured Adults Did Not Improve From 2001-2004 to 2009-2012 as Disparities With Both Publicly and Privately Insured Adults Doubled

BACKGROUND

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) control is higher among insured than uninsured adults, but data on time trends and contributing factors are incomplete and important for improving health equity.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Awareness, treatment, and control of elevated LDL-C were compared among insured versus uninsured and publicly versus privately insured adults, aged 21 to 64 years, in National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from 2001 to 2004, 2005 to 2008, and 2009 to 2012 using Adult Treatment Panel-3 criteria. Compared with insured adults, uninsured adults were younger; were more often minority; reported lower incomes, less education, and fewer healthcare encounters; and had lower awareness and treatment of elevated LDL-C (P<0.0001). LDL-C control was higher among insured than uninsured adults in 2001 to 2004 (mean±SEM, 21.4±1.6% versus 10.5±2.6%; P<0.01), and the gap widened by 2009 to 2012 (35.1±1.9% versus 11.3±2.2%; P<0.0001). Despite more minorities (P<0.01), greater poverty, and less education (P<0.001), publicly insured adults had more healthcare visits/year than privately insured adults (P<0.001) and similar awareness, treatment, and control of LDL-C from 2001 to 2012. In multivariable logistic regression, significant positive predictors of cholesterol awareness, treatment, and control included more frequent health care (strongest), increasing age, private healthcare insurance versus uninsured, and hypertension. Public insurance (versus uninsured) was a significant positive predictor of LDL-C control, whereas income <200% versus ≥200% of federal poverty was a significant negative predictor.

CONCLUSIONS

LDL-C control improved similarly over time in publicly and privately insured adults but was stagnant among the uninsured. Healthcare insurance largely addresses socioeconomic barriers to effective LDL-C management, yet poverty retains an independent adverse effect.

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.

Economic Burden of Chronic Conditions Among Survivors of Cancer in the United States

Purpose The prevalence of cancer survivorship and chronic health conditions is increasing. Limited information exists on the economic burden of chronic conditions among survivors of cancer. This study examines the prevalence and economic effect of chronic conditions among survivors of cancer. Methods Using the 2008 to 2013 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, we present nationally representative estimates of the prevalence of chronic conditions (heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke, emphysema, high cholesterol, diabetes, arthritis, and asthma) and multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) and the incremental annual health care use, medical expenditures, and lost productivity for survivors of cancer attributed to individual chronic conditions and MCCs. Incremental use, expenditures, and lost productivity were evaluated with multivariable regression. Results Survivors of cancer were more likely to have chronic conditions and MCCs compared with adults without a history of cancer. The presence of chronic conditions among survivors of cancer was associated with substantially higher annual medical expenditures, especially for heart disease ($4,595; 95% CI, $3,262 to $5,927) and stroke ($3,843; 95% CI, $1,983 to $5,704). The presence of four or more chronic conditions was associated with increased annual expenditures of $10,280 (95% CI, $7,435 to $13,125) per survivor of cancer. Annual lost productivity was higher among survivors of cancer with other chronic conditions, especially stroke ($4,325; 95% CI, $2,687 to $5,964), and arthritis ($3,534; 95% CI, $2,475 to $4,593). Having four or more chronic conditions was associated with increased annual lost productivity of $9,099 (95% CI, $7,224 to $10,973) per survivor of cancer. The economic impact of chronic conditions was similar among survivors of cancer and individuals without a history of cancer. Conclusion These results highlight the importance of ensuring access to lifelong personalized screening, surveillance, and chronic disease management to help manage chronic conditions, reduce disruptions in employment, and reduce medical expenditures among survivors of cancer.

PCSK9 inhibitors and managing cost in the managed care setting

In patients with hypercholesterolemia who have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and/or familial hypercholesterolemia, a new class of drugs may be helpful in reducing serum levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) beyond maximally tolerated statin therapy. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors lower LDL-C through a different mechanism of action than standard cholesterol-lowering therapies. Currently approved PCSK9 inhibitors are the monoclonal antibodies alirocumab and evolocumab. Although the drugs produce substantial reductions in LDL-C, cost issues and efficacy in preventing cardiovascular events should be evaluated when considering the adoption of PCSK9 inhibitors in the managed care setting.

Evolocumab for Treating Primary Hypercholesterolaemia and Mixed Dyslipidaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of evolocumab (Amgen) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of evolocumab. The appraisal assessed evolocumab as monotherapy or in combination with a statin with or without ezetimibe, or in combination with ezetimibe (without statin therapy), in adult patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia (which includes mixed dyslipidaemia), for whom statins do not provide optimal control of their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and/or for whom statins are contraindicated or not tolerated. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology based on the company's submission to NICE. The evidence was derived mainly from four randomised controlled trials comparing evolocumab with either ezetimibe or placebo in adults with primary familial or non-familial hypercholesterolaemia, who were either able to take statins or who were statin intolerant. The clinical-effectiveness review found that evolocumab is efficacious at lowering LDL-C but that there was uncertainty regarding its impact on cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes. In response to the ERG's critique of the submitted health economic model, the company submitted an amended model, which also included a patient access scheme (PAS). Based on this, the deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for evolocumab against ezetimibe were above £74,000 and £45,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained within the non-familial primary and secondary prevention populations, respectively, whilst the ICER within the heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HeFH) population was approximately £23,000 per QALY gained. The final determination was that evolocumab would be a clinically and cost-effective use of UK NHS resource in certain patient subgroups.

PCSK9 inhibitor access barriers-issues and recommendations: Improving the access process for patients, clinicians and payers

The proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors or monoclonal antibodies likely represent the greatest advance in lipid management in 30 years. In 2015 the US Food and Drug Administration approved both alirocumab and evolocumab for high-risk patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease requiring additional lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Though many lipid specialists, cardiovascular disease prevention experts, endocrinologists, and others prescribed the drugs on label, they found their directives denied 80% to 90% of the time. The high frequency of denials prompted the American Society for Preventive Cardiology (ASPC), to gather multiple stakeholder organizations including the American College of Cardiology, National Lipid Association, American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), and FH Foundation for 2 town hall meetings to identify access issues and implement viable solutions. This article reviews findings recognized and solutions suggested by experts during these discussions. The article is a product of the ASPC, along with each author writing as an individual and endorsed by the AACE.

Efficacy and Safety of Rosuvastatin Every Other Day Compared with Once Daily in Patients with Hypercholesterolemia

Background:

Although most patients with hypercholesterolemia require life-long therapy with statins, these drugs are underused due to high costs. Every-other-day therapy could be one strategy to resolve this problem.

Objective:

To compare the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 10 mg administered every other day versus once daily.

Methods:

An 8 week, randomized, open-label, parallel trial was conducted at the outpatient department of Phramongkutklao Hospital in Bangkok, Thailand. Eighty patients with primary hypercholesterolemia were equally randomized to receive rosuvastatin 10 mg once daily or every other day; 76 patients completed the study. Laboratory data were assessed at baseline and at the end of the study.

Results:

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels were reduced by 48% and 39% in the once-daily and every-other-day groups, respectively (p = 0.011). The percentage of patients who achieved LDL-C goals according to National Cholesterol Education Program-Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines was not significantly different between the once-daily (85%) and every-other-day (70%) groups (p = 0.180). In addition, both regimens were well tolerated, with no patient developing an elevation of more than 3 times baseline levels of aspartate aminotransferase or alanine aminotransferase or 10 times that of creatine kinase. As expected, the monthly cost per percent LDL-C reduction of the once-daily ($0.72) regimen was about 38% higher than that of the every-other-day ($0.44) regimen.

Conclusions:

Every-other-day dosing of rosuvastatin may be an alternative regimen for cost savings, without a major decrease in therapeutic benefit or increase in adverse events, in patients with hypercholesterolemia. The number of patients achieving their LDL-C goal using the every-other-day regimen is comparable with the number using the once-daily regimen, especially in the low-risk patient category.

Association among change in medical costs, level of comorbidity, and change in adherence behavior

OBJECTIVES

Interventions to improve medication adherence are effective, but resource intensive. Interventions must be targeted to those who will potentially benefit most. We examined what heterogeneity exists in the value of adherence based on levels of comorbidity, and the changes in spending on medical services that followed changes in adherence behavior.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study examining medical spending for 2 years (April 1, 2011, to March 31, 2013) in commercial insurance beneficiaries.

METHODS

Multivariable linear modeling was used to adjust for differences in patient characteristics. Analyses were performed at the patient/condition level in 2 cohorts: adherent at baseline and nonadherent at baseline.

RESULTS

We evaluated 857,041 patients, representing 1,264,797 patient therapies consisting of 40% high cholesterol, 48% hypertension, and 12% diabetes. Among those with 3 or more conditions, annual savings associated with becoming adherent were $5341, $4423, and $2081 for patients with at least diabetes, hypertension, and high cholesterol, respectively. The increased costs for patients in this group who became nonadherent were $4653, $7946, and $4008, respectively. Depending on the condition and the direction of behavior change, savings were 2 to 7 times greater than the value for individuals with fewer than 3 conditions. In most cases, the value of preventing nonadherence (ie, persistence) was greater than the value of moving people who are nonadherent to an adherent state.

CONCLUSIONS

There is important heterogeneity in the impact of medication adherence on medical spending. Clinicians and policy makers should consider this when promoting the change of adherence behavior.

Association between dispensing channel and medication adherence among medicare beneficiaries taking medications to treat diabetes, high blood pressure, or high blood cholesterol

BACKGROUND

Medication adherence, defined as taking medications as prescribed, is a key component in controlling disease progression and managing chronic illnesses such as diabetes, hypertension, and high blood cholesterol. These diseases constitute 3 of the top 5 most prevalent conditions among Medicare beneficiaries, warranting further attention to find ways to promote better medication adherence. The scientific literature has established the clinical and financial benefits of medication adherence and the role of dispensing channel in impacting adherence to medications. However, a common limitation in channel-adherence studies is the failure to control for healthy adherer effect (HAE), referring to individuals who are likely to engage proactively in activities that improve their adherence. Healthier individuals may choose the home-delivery channel to ensure continuity in their medication regimens and to minimize obstacles to adherence, such as inadequate access, inconvenience, and financial concerns. Thus, better medication adherence in home delivery may reflect healthier patients' predisposition to self-select for home delivery options. To accurately attribute the impact of dispensing channel on adherence, research would need to control for bias from a patient's predisposition to be adherent. 

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association of pharmacy dispensing channel (home delivery or retail pharmacy) with medication adherence for Medicare Part D beneficiaries taking medications for diabetes, hypertension, or high blood cholesterol, while controlling for low-income subsidy status, differences in days supply, and prior adherence behavior (PAB) as a way to partly control for HAE.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis using de-identified pharmacy claims data from a large national pharmacy benefits manager between October 2010 and December 2012. Continuously eligible Medicare Part D beneficiaries (Medicare Advantage and prescription drug plans participants only) aged 65 years or older who had an antidiabetic, antihypertensive, or antihyperlipidemic prescription claim between October and December 2010, were identified and followed for the next 2 years. Those enrolled in a home delivery auto refill program were excluded from this analysis. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of dispensing channel on medication adherence, controlling for differences in demographics, low-income subsidy status, disease burden, and drug-use pattern. Patients with a proportion of days covered of ≥ 80% were considered to be adherent. The analysis controlled for PAB by using patients' adherence status in the year 2011. 

RESULTS

The final analytical samples consisted of 150,389 diabetic patients, 615,618 hypertension patients, and 358,795 high blood cholesterol patients. The adjusted odds of being adherent for beneficiaries using home delivery were 1.25 times higher (CI = 1.20-1.30) for diabetes medications, 1.29 times higher (CI = 1.27-1.32) for hypertension medications, and 1.26 times higher (CI = 1.23-1.29) for high blood cholesterol medications, compared with beneficiaries using retail channels to obtain their prescriptions. PAB was the strongest contributor to the odds of a patient being adherent across all 3 therapy classes, ranging from odds ratio of 4.48 to 8.09. 

CONCLUSIONS

After excluding patients who received any prescriptions via home delivery auto refill programs and controlling for PAB, differences in days supply, low-income subsidy status, demographics, and disease burden, Medicare beneficiaries who use home delivery for antidiabetics, antihypertensives, or antihyperlipidemics have a greater likelihood of being adherent than patients who fill their prescriptions at retail. The results of this study provide evidence that where medications are received may impact adherence, even when controlling for PAB. Use of the home delivery dispensing channel may be an effective method to improve adherence for Medicare beneficiaries.

The burden of chronic diseases in Missouri: progress and challenges

Chronic diseases are the major causes of premature death, disability and loss of quality of life in Missouri. The prevalence of many chronic diseases, conditions and risk behaviors is greater in Missouri than the U.S. The medical costs for treating chronic diseases are a burden on the state's economy and will increase as the population ages. Prevention and control of chronic diseases is essential to the physical and economic health of Missourians.

Explaining significant differences in subjective and objective measures of cardiovascular health: evidence for the socioeconomic gradient in a population-based study

BACKGROUND

To assess prevalence rates of subjective and objective reports of two cardiovascular disorders (hypertension and hypercholesterolemia) for the same subset of respondents in a large-scale study. To determine whether and the extent to which the socioeconomic health gradient differed in the subjective and objective reports of the two cardiovascular disorders.

METHODS

Data from the first wave (2009/2011) of The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing were used (n = 4,179). This is a nationally representative study of community-dwelling adults aged 50+ residing in Ireland. Subjective measures were derived from self-reports of doctor-diagnosed hypertension and high cholesterol. Objective measure of hypertension was defined as: systolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥90 mm Hg and/or on antihypertensive medication. Objective measure of hypercholesterolemia was defined as: total cholesterol ≥5.2 mmol/L and/or on cholesterol-lowering medication. Objective measures of low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol were also used. Two measures of socioeconomic gradient were employed: education and wealth. Binary and multinomial logistic and linear regression analyses were used. Analyses were adjusted for an extensive battery of covariates, including demographics and measures of physical/behavioural health and health care utilization.

RESULTS

Prevalence of cardiovascular disorders: prevalence of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia was significantly higher when the cardiovascular disorders were measured objectively as compared to self-reports (64% and 72.1% versus 37% and 41.1%, respectively). Socioeconomic gradient in hypertension: the odds of being objectively hypertensive were significantly lower for individuals with tertiary/higher education (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60-0.92) and in the highest tertile of the wealth distribution (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.95). In contrast, the associations between socioeconomic status and self-reported hypertension were not statistically significant. Socioeconomic gradient in hypercholesterolemia: wealthier individuals had higher odds of self-reporting elevated cholesterol (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.03-1.58). Associations between socioeconomic status and objectively measured hypercholesterolemia and low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol were not significant. Higher education and, to a lesser extent, greater wealth were associated with higher levels of high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol.

CONCLUSIONS

Clear discrepancies in prevalence rates and gradients by socioeconomic status were found between subjective and objective reports of both disorders. This emphasizes the importance of objective measures when collecting population data.

Review of the cost effectiveness of pharmacogenetic-guided treatment of hypercholesterolaemia

Hypercholesterolaemia is a highly prevalent condition that has major health and cost implications for society. Pharmacotherapy is an important and effective treatment modality for hypercholesterolaemia, with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors ('statins') the most commonly used class of drugs. Over the past decade, there has been intensive research to identify pharmacogenetic markers to guide treatment of hypercholesterolaemia. This study aimed to review the evidence of incremental cost, effect and cost effectiveness of pharmacogenetic-guided treatment of hypercholesterolaemia. Three cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) were identified that studied the value of screening for genotypes of angiotensin I converting enzyme (ACE), cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP), and kinesin family member 6 (KIF6) prior to initiating statin therapy. For all three CEAs, a major limitation identified was the reproducibility of the evidence supporting the clinical effect of screening for the pharmacogenetic marker. Associated issues included the uncertain value of pharmacogenetic markers over or in addition to existing approaches for monitoring lipid levels, and the lack of evidence to assess the effectiveness of alternative therapeutic options for individuals identified as poor responders to statin therapy. Finally, the economic context of the market for diagnostic tests (is it competitive or is there market power?) and the practicality of large-scale screening programmes to inform prescribing in a complex and varied market may limit the generalizability of the results of the specific CEAs to policy outcomes. The genotype of solute carrier organic anion transporter family member 1B1 (SLCO1B1) has recently been associated with increased risk of muscle toxicity with statin therapy and the review identified that exploration of cost effectiveness of this pharmacogenetic marker is likely warranted.

The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of dark chocolate consumption as prevention therapy in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease: best case scenario analysis using a Markov model

OBJECTIVE

To model the long term effectiveness and cost effectiveness of daily dark chocolate consumption in a population with metabolic syndrome at high risk of cardiovascular disease.

DESIGN

Best case scenario analysis using a Markov model.

SETTING

Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle study.

PARTICIPANTS

2013 people with hypertension who met the criteria for metabolic syndrome, with no history of cardiovascular disease and not receiving antihypertensive therapy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Treatment effects associated with dark chocolate consumption derived from published meta-analyses were used to determine the absolute number of cardiovascular events with and without treatment. Costs associated with cardiovascular events and treatments were applied to determine the potential amount of funding required for dark chocolate therapy to be considered cost effective.

RESULTS

Daily consumption of dark chocolate (polyphenol content equivalent to 100 g of dark chocolate) can reduce cardiovascular events by 85 (95% confidence interval 60 to 105) per 10,000 population treated over 10 years. $A40 (£25; €31; $42) could be cost effectively spent per person per year on prevention strategies using dark chocolate. These results assume 100% compliance and represent a best case scenario.

CONCLUSIONS

The blood pressure and cholesterol lowering effects of dark chocolate consumption are beneficial in the prevention of cardiovascular events in a population with metabolic syndrome. Daily dark chocolate consumption could be an effective cardiovascular preventive strategy in this population.

Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of cardiovascular disease prevention in whole populations: modelling study

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the potential cost effectiveness of a population-wide risk factor reduction programme aimed at preventing cardiovascular disease.

DESIGN

Economic modelling analysis.

SETTING

England and Wales. Population Entire population. Model Spreadsheet model to quantify the reduction in cardiovascular disease over a decade, assuming the benefits apply consistently for men and women across age and risk groups.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cardiovascular events avoided, quality adjusted life years gained, and savings in healthcare costs for a given effectiveness; estimates of how much it would be worth spending to achieve a specific outcome.

RESULTS

A programme across the entire population of England and Wales (about 50 million people) that reduced cardiovascular events by just 1% would result in savings to the health service worth at least £30m (€34m; $48m) a year compared with no additional intervention. Reducing mean cholesterol concentrations or blood pressure levels in the population by 5% (as already achieved by similar interventions in some other countries) would result in annual savings worth at least £80m to £100m. Legislation or other measures to reduce dietary salt intake by 3 g/day (current mean intake approximately 8.5 g/day) would prevent approximately 30,000 cardiovascular events, with savings worth at least £40m a year. Legislation to reduce intake of industrial trans fatty acid by approximately 0.5% of total energy content might gain around 570,000 life years and generate NHS savings worth at least £230m a year.

CONCLUSIONS

Any intervention that achieved even a modest population-wide reduction in any major cardiovascular risk factor would produce a net cost saving to the NHS, as well as improving health. Given the conservative assumptions used in this model, the true benefits would probably be greater.

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

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin (Eze/Simva) compared with doubling the submaximal statin doses, in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) events in the INFORCE study.

METHODS

Lifetime treatment costs and benefits were computed using a Markov model. Model inputs included each patient's cardiovascular risk factor profile and actual lipid values at baseline and 12 weeks (endpoint). Cardiovascular event and drug costs were discounted at 3.5%. Age-specific utilities were based on UK literature values and non-coronary heart disease mortality rates on the Office of National Statistics data. In the INFORCE study, 384 patients taking statins at stable doses for ≥6 weeks before hospital admission were stratified by statin dose/potency (low, medium, and high) and then randomized to doubling the statin dose or switching to Eze/Simva 10/40mg for 12 weeks.

RESULTS

The Eze/Simva group (n=195) had a higher mean baseline total cholesterol than the double-statin group (n=189). Analyses were adjusted for baseline characteristics. In the INFORCE study, Eze/Simva reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by ∼30% (vs. 4% with doubling statin doses) and significantly enhanced LDL-C goal attainment. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, Eze/Simva conferred 0.218 incremental discounted quality-adjusted life year (QALY) at a discounted incremental cost of £2524, for an ICER of £11,571/QALY (95% confidence interval=£8181-£18,600/QALY). The ICER was £13,552/QALY, £11,930/QALY, and £10,148/QALY in the low-, medium-, and high-potency strata, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching to Eze/Simva 10/40 mg is projected to be a cost-effective treatment (vs. double-statin) in UK patients with ACS.

Cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events according to Framingham Risk Score in patients with elevated C-reactive protein

CONTEXT

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved rosuvastatin calcium for prevention of cardiovascular events in patients who have elevated levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) but not overt hyperlipidemia. The FDA's decision was based primarily on research reported by the JUPITER (Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: An Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin) Study Group. The cost-effectiveness of such treatment is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of treatment with rosuvastatin vs standard management, according to Framingham Risk Score (FRS), for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients who have hs-CRP levels of 2.0 mg/L or higher and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels of less than 130 mg/dL.

METHODS

A Markov-type model was used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of rosuvastatin (20 mg daily) vs standard management for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients over a 10-year period. Cost data were obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Red Book drug reference. Health utility measures were obtained from the literature. Cardiovascular event data were obtained directly from the JUPITER Study Group. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

Treating patients with rosuvastatin to prevent cardiovascular events based on a hs-CRP level greater than 2.0 mg/L and an LDL-C level of 130 mg/dL or lower would result in estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $35,455 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in patients with an FRS greater than 10% and $90,714 per QALY in patients with an FRS less than or equal to 10%. Results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that in patients with an FRS greater than 10%, the probability that rosuvastatin is considered cost-effective at $50,000 per QALY is approximately 98%. In patients with an FRS less than or equal to 10%, the probability that rosuvastatin is considered cost-effective at $50,000 per QALY is 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with standard management, treatment with rosuvastatin is a cost-effective strategy over a 10-year period for preventing cardiovascular events in patients with FRS greater than 10%, elevated hs-CRP levels, and normal LDL-C levels.

Clinical and economic outcomes in patients switched to simvastatin in a community-based family medicine practice

BACKGROUND

The introduction of a generic formulation of simvastatin has created the potential to provide significant low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction in a highly cost-effective manner.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort analysis utilised electronic medical record data from a United States, community-based, independent physician family medicine practice. Patients switched from other statins or statin combinations to simvastatin by the family medicine physicians during routine patient care from January 2002 to October 2008 were identified. Equivalent statin dosing, lipid panel changes and National Cholesterol Education Program--Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP) LDL-C goal attainment rates were compared preswitch and postswitch. The potential economic impact of simvastatin switching was also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 78 patients were identified, and in 76.9% of the switches, an equipotent dose of simvastatin was prescribed. All lipid fractions showed small, non-significant increases, with LDL-C having a 2.2 mg/dl (0.06 mmol/l) increase after switching (p = 0.476). NCEP LDL-C goal attainment rates were 79.5% and 78.2% before and after switching, respectively (p = 1.00). Modelled annual cost savings associated with switching were estimated at $671.99 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate that an independent family medicine physician practice can successfully perform statin therapeutic substitution during routine patient care. Equivalent clinical outcomes with regards to changes in lipid fractions and NCEP LDL-C goal attainment were observed in conjunction with the potential for reduced costs for patients.

Health insurance and cardiovascular disease risk factors

BACKGROUND

Compared with those with health insurance, the uninsured receive less care for chronic conditions, such as hypertension and diabetes, and experience higher mortality.

METHODS

We investigated the relations of health insurance status to the prevalence, treatment, and control of major cardiovascular disease risk factors-hypertension and elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol-among Framingham Heart Study (FHS) participants in gender-specific, age-adjusted analyses. Participants who attended the seventh Offspring cohort examination cycle (1998-2001) or the first Third Generation cohort examination cycle (2002-2005) were studied.

RESULTS

Among 6098 participants, 3.8% were uninsured at the time of the FHS clinic examination and ages ranged from 19 to 64 years. The prevalence of hypertension and elevated LDL cholesterol was similar for the insured and uninsured; however, the proportion of those who obtained treatment and achieved control of these risk factors was lower among the uninsured. Uninsured men and women were less likely to be treated for hypertension with odds ratios for treatment of 0.19 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07-0.56) for men and 0.31 (95% CI, 0.12-0.79) for women. Among men, the uninsured were less likely to receive treatment or achieve control of elevated LDL cholesterol than the insured, with odds ratios of 0.12 (95% CI, 0.04-0.38) for treatment and 0.17 (95% CI, 0.05-0.56) for control.

CONCLUSION

The treatment and control of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia are lower among uninsured adults. Increasing the proportion of insured individuals may be a means to improve the treatment and control of cardiovascular disease risk factors and to reduce health disparities.

Potential savings without compromising the quality of care

AIMS

This study was designed to analyse the association between adherence to guidelines for rational drug use and surrogate outcome markers for hypertension, diabetes and hypercholesterolaemia.

METHODS

The study used a cross-sectional ecological design. Data from dispensed prescriptions and medical records were analysed from 24 primary healthcare centres with a combined registered population of 330,000 patients in 2006. Guideline adherence was determined calculating the proportion of the prescribed volume of antidiabetic agents, antihypertensives and lipid-lowering agents representing the 14 different drugs included in the guidelines for these three areas. Patient outcome was assessed using surrogate marker data on HbA1C, blood pressure (BP) and s-cholesterol. The association between the guidelines adherence and outcomes measures was analysed by logistic regression.

RESULTS

The proportion of guideline antidiabetic drugs in relation to all antidiabetic drugs prescribed varied between 80% and 97% among the practices, the ratio of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors to all renin-angiotensin drugs 40-77% and the ratio of simvastatin to all statins 58-90%. The proportion of patients reaching targets for HbA1C, BP and s-cholesterol varied between 34% and 66%, 36% and 57% and 46% and 71% respectively. No significant associations were found between adherence to the guidelines and outcome. The expenditures for antihypertensives and lipid-lowering drugs could potentially be reduced by 10% and 50% respectively if all practices adhered to the guidelines as the top performing practices.

CONCLUSION

A substantial amount of money can be saved in primary care without compromising the quality of care by using recommended first-line drugs for the treatment diabetes, hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia.

Cost effectiveness of ezetimibe in patients with cardiovascular disease and statin intolerance or contraindications: a Markov model

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of long-term ezetimibe monotherapy in patients with established cardiovascular disease (CVD) who do not tolerate statins or in whom they are contraindicated.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to estimate the potential costs and benefits associated with ezetimibe monotherapy compared with no treatment. The benefits associated with ezetimibe treatment were informed by a systematic review of clinical evidence and a published relationship linking changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels to cardiovascular events.

RESULTS

In the absence of data from clinical outcome trials, surrogate endpoints such as changes in lipid levels were used as indicators of clinical outcomes. A meta-analysis of seven placebo-controlled trials included in the review showed that ezetimibe was associated with a statistically significant mean reduction (from baseline to endpoint) in LDL-C of 18.56% (95% CI -19.68, -17.44; p < 0.00001) compared with placebo. Using 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, it is estimated that ezetimibe monotherapy would prevent an average of 49 nonfatal myocardial infarctions, 11 nonfatal strokes, and 37 cardiovascular deaths in a cohort of 1,000 patients aged 55 years with a baseline LDL-C concentration of 4.0 mmol/L. Events avoided provide an additional 211 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over the 45 years modeled. With a mean incremental cost of pound 4,861,000 (year 2006 value), the discounted cost per QALY is pound 23,026 (Jackknife CI 22 979, 23 074). The model is reasonably robust to variations in key parameters. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios fall below pound 20,000 per QALY for cohorts with baseline LDL-C values >4.5 mmol/L.

CONCLUSION

Ezetimibe monotherapy compared with no treatment is a cost-effective alternative for individuals with a history of CVD and high LDL-C levels, who do not tolerate statins or in whom they are contraindicated.

Lowering cholesterol - a review on the role of plant sterols

BACKGROUND

Plant sterols are an important but underused dietary component in the treatment of elevated blood cholesterol.

OBJECTIVE

This review discusses the background to plant sterol use and reviews evidence about its use in clinical practice.

DISCUSSION

When consumed in the recommended amounts, sterols alone decrease low density lipoprotein cholesterol; in combination with other dietary changes, low density lipoprotein can be further lowered. Most patients, whether they are on cholesterol lowering drugs or not, would benefit from using plant sterols, which are now available in milk and yoghurt as well as spreads. In animal models, plant sterols have been shown to reduce atherosclerosis despite an elevation in the blood level, however there is no hard end point data for this in humans.

[Cost-effectiveness analysis of a genetic screening program in the close relatives of Spanish patients with familial hypercholesterolemia]

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a genetic screening program for first-degree relatives of patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), followed by treatment when necessary, compared with the alternative of no screening.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness analysis modeled the effect of statin treatment on individuals who were diagnosed with FH after genetic screening. The impact of uncertainty was evaluated using univariate probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The alternate strategy considered was no screening. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the number of life-years gained (LYG) was regarded as the health outcome and the costs of screening, statin treatment, specialist consultations and hospital visits were all included. In addition, the expected value of perfect information was calculated as part of the sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

In the base case, the incremental cost of the screening program for close relatives was 3423 euros per LYG. Although the sensitivity analysis gave a range of results, the conclusions were not affected by changes in the parameters considered. The screening program was found to be better than the alternative considered at a probability level of 95% if the acceptable level of health-care costs was at least 7400 euros per LYG.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis indicates that a genetic screening program, supplemented by treatment, for the close relatives of individuals with FH is preferable to the alternative of no screening in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness.

Discovery Belux: comparison of rosuvastatin with atorvastatin in hypercholesterolaemia

METHODS

Discovery Belux is an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase IIIb, parallel group study comparing the efficacy of rosuvastatin (RSV) and atorvastatin (ATV) on changes in lipid levels and the achievement of European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) lipid goals. Patients (> or = 18 years) with primary hypercholesterolaemia, with a low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C) level > 120 mg/dl (on treatment) or > 135 mg/dl (naive subjects), and with a statin indication, were randomised to receive RSV 10 mg/day or ATV 10 mg/day for 12 weeks. Patients not at goal after 12 weeks and receiving ATV 10 were further switched to RSV 10 mg for another 12 weeks. Patients not at goal with RSV 10 mg were further titrated to RSV 20 mg.

RESULTS

938 patients were randomised to the two treatment groups. After 12 weeks of treatment, a significantly greater percentage of patients receiving RSV 10 compared with ATV 10 achieved EAS LDL-C target goal (< 115 mg/dl) (85% vs. 67%). LDL-C was reduced by 47% and total cholesterol (TC) by 33% with RSV 10.This was 38% and 27% for ATV 10, respectively. After 24 weeks, an additional 57% of patients initially taking RSV 10 and uncontrolled, reached the target with RSV 20. In the patient group, initially taking ATV 10 and uncontrolled, 65% reached the target with RSV 10 after 24 weeks. Both treatments were well tolerated with a similar incidence of adverse events. In addition, a health economic analysis was performed. As RSV 10 is available at a lower cost in Belgium and as it is more effective, compared to ATV 10, it appeared to be the option of choice from a cost-effectiveness perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

Rosuvastatin 10 mg treatment is significantly more effective than atorvastatin 10 mg at achieving European LDL-C goals, at lowering LDL-C and TC. These results were obtained with a similar safety profile. From a cost-effectiveness perspective RSV 10 is the preferred therapeutic option in comparison with ATV 10. Uptitration of uncontrolled patients to RSV 20 mg and switch from ATV 10 to RSV 10 allowed significantly more patients to reach the LDL-C and TC target goal.

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.

Height, health, and income in the US, 1984--2005

Height has been associated with better physical health when outcomes such as diabetes, heart disease, and obesity are considered, yet stature is rarely used in predicting comorbidities or as a proxy for physical health when analyzing outcomes such as income. Since height is a more exogenous measure than variables likely to be affected by lifestyle changes, such as obesity, observing labor market outcomes based on height may be revealing. In addition, gender and racial differences must be taken into account when analyzing the effects of height on physical health and labor market outcomes. This study utilizes the 1984--2005 samples of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in estimating trends in height over time by gender and race, and in analyzing the relationship between height and physical health and labor market outcomes in the United States. Trends show that height has not changed substantially at a time when physical health, as indicated by the incidence of obesity, Type II diabetes, and cholesterol, has deteriorated, and earnings disparities across racial gaps persist. Results at mean values for males indicate that being 10cm taller is associated with a 14-47% increase in obesity, an 8-13% reduction in cholesterol prevalence, and a $1874-2306 income premium. For females, results indicate that being 10cm taller is associated with an 8-18% reduction in cholesterol, a 14% reduction in diabetes for white females, and an $891-2243 earnings premium.

Lipid-modifying therapy and attainment of cholesterol goals in Hungary: the return on expenditure achieved for lipid therapy (REALITY) study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death in Eastern Europe. Few studies on cholesterol goal achievement have been conducted in Hungarian clinical settings. This study set out to evaluate lipid-modifying therapy practices and their effects on total cholesterol (TC) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal attainment in Hungarian patients with coronary heart disease (CHD), CHD risk equivalents, or >or=2 coronary risk factors.

METHODS

This multicentre observational study involved patients receiving lipid-modifying therapy who were under the care of general practitioners (n = 300) or specialists (n = 140). Physician questionnaires were used to collect data on baseline patient characteristics, including laboratory parameters. Using validated cardiovascular risk assessment measures, patients were stratified into high-risk (10-year absolute coronary risk >20%; n = 367) and lower risk groups (n = 73). Cholesterol goals were TC <4.5 mmol/L (<175 mg/dL) and LDL-C <2.5 mmol/L (<100 mg/dL) for the high-risk group and TC <5.0 mmol/L (<193 mg/dL) and LDL-C <3.0 mmol/L (<117 mg/dL) for those at lower risk.

RESULTS

Among 440 patients (n = 312 with CHD or CHD risk equivalents), 374 (85%) were initiated on HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statin monotherapy), 44 (10%) received fibric acid derivatives and 22 (5%) received combination regimens. Although >50% of patients needed >35% TC lowering to reach goal, <10% of patients received high or very high potency lipid-modifying regimens or combination regimens initially. A total of 116 (26.4%) patients achieved their TC goals after >/=1 year of treatment, including 27.9% of patients with CHD/risk equivalents and 22.7% of those with risk factors only. Sixty-six (15%) patients achieved goal on initial lipid-modifying regimens, while a further 50 (11.4%) achieved goal following treatment changes, including upward dosage adjustments.

CONCLUSION

Approximately 74% of Hungarian patients receiving lipid-modifying therapy in our study did not achieve cholesterol goals. The proportion of patients realising their TC goals was higher in those treated by specialists but still did not exceed one-third.

Overcoming inertia: improvement in achieving target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol

OBJECTIVE

To improve lipid management of high-risk patients in a large academic primary care practice.

STUDY DESIGN

Educational intervention with historical controls.

METHODS

We determined the likelihood of providers within an academic Veterans Affairs primary care practice to adjust simvastatin doses before and after a low-cost educational intervention. Study patients were enrolled during a 2-year preintervention period, had an indication to achieve a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level of <100 mg/dL, and were taking simvastatin but not at the maximum dose. We explored factors that might affect dose changing, including patient demographics, diabetes, coronary disease, patient medication adherence, and a threshold effect where LDL-C values just above the target might lead to provider inaction.

RESULTS

Initially, 49% of 4048 patients met their LDL-C target. Before the intervention, the simvastatin dose was changed at only 16% of 2103 patient visits where the patient was not at treatment target and was on less than the maximum dose. Providers were more likely to adjust the dose for patients with high LDL-C and those who were compliant, and less likely to adjust it for older or diabetic patients. After the intervention, 62% of 1414 patients met their treatment target. Compared with the preintervention period, providers were more likely to increase the simvastatin dose for patients not yet at their target (P = .023).

CONCLUSION

Following a low-cost intervention, providers more aggressively treated high LDL-C in high-risk patients, and more patients reached their treatment target goal.

Controversies in the Treatment of Hypercholesterolemia in the Elderly: Who Should Be Treated and How?

High levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol may contribute to the development of coronary heart disease in the absence of other risk factors. This paper reviews major cholesterol prevention trials since 1994 concerning possible beneficial results of lowering cholesterol in persons over 65 years of age.

Incremental benefit and cost-effectiveness of high-dose statin therapy in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Recent clinical trials found that high-dose statin therapy, compared with conventional-dose statin therapy, reduces the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and stable coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the actual benefit and cost-effectiveness of high-dose statin therapy are unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We designed a Markov model to compare daily high-dose with conventional-dose statin therapy for hypothetical 60-year-old cohorts with ACS and stable CAD over patient lifetime. Pooled estimates for major clinical end points (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, rehospitalization, and revascularization) from relevant clinical trials were incorporated. Incremental benefit was quantified as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Threshold analyses determined at what price difference high-dose statins would yield incremental cost-effective ratios below $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000 per QALY gained. In ACS patients, a high-dose versus conventional-dose statin strategy resulted in a gain of 0.35 QALYs. In threshold analyses, a high-dose statin strategy consistently yielded incremental cost-effective ratios below $30,000 per QALY even under conservative model assumptions. In stable CAD patients, a high-dose statin strategy yielded a gain of only 0.10 QALYs and was sensitive to model assumptions about statin efficacy. The daily cost difference between a high- and conventional-dose statin would need to be <$1.70, $2.65, and $3.55 to yield incremental cost-effective ratios below $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

High-dose statin therapy is potentially highly effective and cost-effective in patients with ACS. In patients with stable CAD, however, the cost-effectiveness of high-dose statin therapy is highly sensitive to model assumptions about statin efficacy and cost. Use of high-dose statins can be supported on health economic grounds in patients with ACS, but the case is less clear for patients with stable CAD.

Evaluation of the cost savings and clinical outcomes of switching patients from atorvastatin to simvastatin and losartan to candesartan in a Primary Care setting

This study was carried out in a Primary Care practice in the UK to assess the clinical and practical implications, cost savings and patients' perspective of switching to generic drugs. In the 70 patients switched from atorvastatin to simvastatin there was no significant change in mean total cholesterol 4 months after the switch (4.07 +/- 0.55 mmol/L prior to the switch and 4.10 +/- 0.73 mmol/L post-switch) and only one patient switched back because of side effects. One hundred and fifteen patients were switched from losartan to candesartan. Seven switched back but in those that remained on candesartan there was a small, significant (p = 0.0006), reduction in blood pressure after the switch (138.9/78.7 +/- 13.2/7.0 to 136.3/76.1 +/- 14.7/8.4 mmHg). No adverse events attributable to the switch were reported in either group and the net annualised savings for the year 2005-2006 were 12,715.58 pounds for the statin and 13,374.40 pounds for the antihypertensive switch, respectively.

Statin's cost-effectiveness: a Canadian analysis of commonly prescribed generic and brand name statins

BACKGROUND

Generic statins may be considered as a compelling treatment option for managing dyslipidemia, due to their reduced cost, compared to their brand name equivalent. However, further assessment is needed to determine whether using a particular generic statin is more cost-effective relative to other brand-name statins.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of the most commonly prescribed statins in Canada with respect to 1) lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level (LDL-C) and 2) achieving National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) LDL-C goal.

METHODS

The study was conducted from the perspective of Canadian payers over a 1-year time horizon. Clinical data were obtained from the STELLAR trial (n=2268) in which patients received fixed doses of rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, simvastatin and pravastatin. Brand and generic drug costs were based on wholesale acquisition costs. Relative cost-effectiveness was assessed using the net monetary benefit approach (NMB), which allows probabilistic cost-effectiveness comparison of the various treatment options over a wide range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) values for a unit of clinical effect.

RESULTS

Rosuvastatin 10mg was the most cost-effective statin over the largest range of WTP values. Pravastatin 10mg was cost-effective when the clinical outcomes had little or no monetary value. Rosuvastatin 20 mg was more cost-effective at the highest end of the WTP spectrum.

CONCLUSION

The result of this analysis provides evidence that prescribing generic statins in Canada does not necessarily translate into the most cost-effective option for treating dyslipidemia; especially as the monetary value of 1% decrease in LDL-C or patients achieving NCEP ATP III target increases.

PHARMAC and the statin debacle

Statins are lipid-modifying drugs which dramatically lower the total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and have been shown in large clinical trials to reduce the rate of vascular events, including heart attacks, strokes, and death. For every 1% reduction in the LDL cholesterol level, the relative risk for major coronary heart disease events is reduced by approximately 1%. Since the landmark Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) was published in 1994, multiple further clinical trials have reinforced the benefits of treating large numbers of patients with statins with the emphasis on achieving low LDL cholesterol levels (currently 1.6 mmol/L) for the optimal management of patients at very high risk. However PHARMAC's actions since statins were first available have significantly impaired the optimal management of New Zealand patients. A review of the methods employed during the statin era is a useful exercise in understanding how PHARMAC functions and emphasises the point that rather than achieving low-cost prices for drugs, PHARMAC simply impedes the timely delivery of modern medicines to New Zealand patients.

Prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors in a middle-income country and estimated cost of a treatment strategy

Background

We assessed the prevalence of risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in a middle-income country in rapid epidemiological transition and estimated direct costs for treating all individuals at increased cardiovascular risk, i.e. following the so-called "high risk strategy".

Methods

Survey of risk factors using an age- and sex-stratified random sample of the population of Seychelles aged 25–64 in 2004. Assessment of CVD risk and treatment modalities were in line with international guidelines. Costs are expressed as US$ per capita per year.

Results

1255 persons took part in the survey (participation rate of 80.2%). Prevalence of main risk factors was: 39.6% for high blood pressure (≥140/90 mmHg or treatment) of which 59% were under treatment; 24.2% for high cholesterol (≥6.2 mmol/l); 20.8% for low HDL-cholesterol (<1.0 mmol/l); 9.3% for diabetes (fasting glucose ≥7.0 mmol/l); 17.5% for smoking; 25.1% for obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m²) and 22.1% for the metabolic syndrome. Overall, 43% had HBP, high cholesterol or diabetes and substantially increased CVD risk. The cost for medications needed to treat all high-risk individuals amounted to US $45.6, i.e. $11.2 for high blood pressure, $3.8 for diabetes, and $30.6 for dyslipidemia (using generic drugs except for hypercholesterolemia). Cost for minimal follow-up medical care and laboratory tests amounted to $22.6.

Conclusion

High prevalence of major risk factors was found in a rapidly developing country and costs for treatment needed to reduce risk factors in all high-risk individuals exceeded resources generally available in low or middle income countries. Our findings emphasize the need for affordable cost-effective treatment strategies and the critical importance of population strategies aimed at reducing risk factors in the entire population.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cholesterol-lowering therapies in Spain

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost efficacy of atorvastatin, simvastatin, lovastatin, fluvastatin, pravastatin, and colestyramine in the reduction of low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and the cost per patient to achieve the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) therapeutic objectives in Spain.

METHOD

The following treatments were evaluated: atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin 10-40 mg/day; lovastatin and fluvastatin 20-80 mg/day; and colestyramine 12-24 g/day. The cost effectiveness of these treatments was evaluated, in terms of cost per percentage of LDL-C reduction, by comparing annual treatment costs versus the efficacy of LDL-C reduction. Treatment costs included medication costs (2003 wholesale prices), control measures, and the treatment of adverse affects. The efficacy of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) was obtained from a meta-analysis of results obtained from clinical trials published between 1993 and 2003 that met the following criteria: monotherapy; >16 weeks of treatment; randomized allocation of individuals to the intervention and comparator groups; dietary treatment for > or =3 months before administration of medication; and double-blind measurement of outcomes. Average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated to assess the efficiency of cholesterol-lowering treatments.

RESULTS

Efficacy, in terms of percentage of LDL-C reduction, ranged from 10% for colestyramine 12 g/day to 49% for atorvastatin 40 mg/day. Total annual treatment costs ranged from euro 321 for fluvastatin 20 mg/day to euro 1151 for atorvastatin 40 mg/day. Cost-effectiveness ratios, in terms of cost per percentage of LDL-C reduced, were: euro 11-23 for atorvastatin; euro 12-21 for simvastatin; euro 14-22 for lovastatin; euro 15-24 for fluvastatin; euro 21-42 for pravastatin; and euro 35-46 for colestyramine. Atorvastatin 10 mg/day was the most cost-effective treatment, followed by simvastatin 10 mg/day, lovastatin 20 mg/day, and fluvastatin 20 mg/day. Atorvastatin was the most cost-effective treatment in the achievement of the NCEP ATP III LDL-C reduction objectives in patients with high (<100 mg/dL) and moderate (<130 mg/dL) risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), with a cost per patient of euro 747 and euro 405 per year, respectively. Fluvastatin was the most cost-effective treatment in the achievement of the NCEP ATPIII therapeutic objective in patients with low-risk of CHD (LDL-C <160 mg/dL), with a cost per patient of euro 321.

CONCLUSION

Atorvastatin 10 mg/day was the most cost-effective cholesterol-lowering drug, followed by simvastatin 10 mg/day, lovastatin 20 mg/day, and fluvastatin 20 mg/day. The preferred statin should be atorvastatin in patients with moderate-to-high CHD risk and fluvastatin in patients with low risk for CHD.

Cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin compared with other statins from a managed care perspective

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to identify the most cost-effective statin or combination of statins, from the perspective of a managed care payer.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model compared the cost-effectiveness of titration to goal with atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin in patients with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Effectiveness measures included the percentage change from baseline LDL-C and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and the percentage of patients achieving National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Second Adult Treatment Panel (ATP II) LDL-C goals. Direct medical costs were calculated based on drug, physician, and laboratory resource use, multiplied by wholesale acquisition costs for drugs and the 2005 Medicare reimbursement rates for services. A Monte Carlo simulation tested the sensitivity of results to model efficacy inputs.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, rosuvastatin dominated atorvastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin. Generic lovastatin dominated fluvastatin. The incremental (absolute) reduction in LDL-C, increase in HDL-C, and increase in patients to goal with rosuvastatin compared with lovastatin were 16%, 3%, and 27%, respectively. Incremental costs per additional 1% reduction in LDL-C, 1% increase in HDL-C, and patient to goal with rosuvastatin versus lovastatin were $8, $41, and $436, respectively. A wide variety of assumptions were assessed and Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses were conducted. Findings were most sensitive to the cost of lovastatin.

CONCLUSION

Rosuvastatin dominates atorvastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin because it is more effective and less costly, and it may be considered cost-effective compared with generic lovastatin. The most cost-effective two-statin formulary contained lovastatin and rosuvastatin.

[Low rate of achieving LDL-cholesterol objective in a low income population]

OBJECTIVE

To assess the percentage of patients suitable to the objectives preconized by III Diretrizes sobre Dislipidemias da Sociedade Brasileira de Cardiologia (3rd Guidelines on Dyslipidemia of Brazilian Society of Cardiology), in a low income population. To determine whether there was a difference of that percentage in high risk patients, according to their age (< 75 years old vs. > 75 years old).

METHODS

We analyzed, consecutively, 190 patients, divided in two groups: 51 low and middle risk patients (G I) and 139 high risk patients for coronary artery disease (G II). The sample was characterized by low income patients (69% for the patients had a family income between 1 and 2 minimum salaries), whose hypolipidemic therapy was irregularly supplied by the state.

RESULTS

G I and G II showed, respectively, 70.1 +/- 13.7 years old and 13.7% of men and 68.5 +/- 10.6 years old and 62.6% of men. Among patients from G II, 30% showed LDL-cholesterol within the preconized objectives. The frequency of patients suitable to the objectives was significantly lower in individuals with 75 years of age or older than among those younger than 75 years old (16% vs. 30%, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

In a predominantly low income population and without continuous assistance from the State to purchase statins, the achievement of preconized objectives for LDL-cholesterol, by 3rd Guidelines on Dyslipidemia of Brasilian Society of Cardiology, is low and also significantly lower among very old patients, with a high risk profile for atherosclerosis.

Cost-efficacy analysis of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme a reductase inhibitors based on results of the STELLAR trial: clinical implications for therapeutic selection

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost/1% reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) and the cost/patient achieving the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) LDL goal based on the results of the Statin Therapies for Elevated Lipid Levels Compared Across Doses to Rosuvastatin (STELLAR) trial.

DESIGN

Cost-efficacy analysis.

INTERVENTION

Investigators in the STELLAR trial evaluated percentage reductions in LDL and achievement of the ATP III LDL goal for various doses of atorvastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin. We derived efficacy estimates for these four statins from the results of this trial. We also derived drug acquisition costs from the average wholesale prices to estimate the cost/1% reduction in LDL levels and the cost/patient achieving the ATP III LDL goal.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

In the STELLAR trial, doses of rosuvastatin produced reductions in LDL significantly greater than those of equivalent milligram/milligram doses of atorvastatin, simvastatin, or pravastatin. The annual acquisition cost/percentage LDL reduction was lower with rosuvastatin at doses of 10 mg (20.92 dollars), 20 mg (18.28 dollars), and 40 mg (17.42 dollars) than with the other statins analyzed. Rosuvastatin also had a lower average cost/patient achieving the ATP III LDL goal over 6 weeks than that of the other statins.

CONCLUSION

Although the long-term clinical benefits and safety data from the increased LDL reduction achieved with rosuvastatin remain uncertain, rosuvastatin may be the most cost-effective statin among those analyzed in terms of acquisition cost/1% reduction in LDL levels and in terms of patients achieving ATP III LDL goals. On the basis of the efficacy estimates from the STELLAR trial in conjunction with acquisition cost, a potential cost savings could be realized from the use of rosuvastatin.

Rosuvastatin is cost-effective in treating patients to low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol goals compared with atorvastatin, pravastatin and simvastatin: analysis of the STELLAR trial

BACKGROUND

Rosuvastatin calcium (CRESTOR) has demonstrated superior efficacy in reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). However, healthcare providers and authorities require information on its cost-effectiveness in the treatment of dyslipidaemia.

DESIGN

A retrospective pharmacoeconomic analysis was performed using data from the Statin Therapies for Elevated Lipid Levels compared Across doses to Rosuvastatin (STELLAR) trial. The cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin 10-40 mg was compared with atorvastatin 10-80 mg, pravastatin 10-40 mg and both branded and generic simvastatin 10-80 mg in achieving Third Joint European Task Force LDL-C goals in patients with hypercholesterolaemia.

METHODS

The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service, using clinical data from the STELLAR trial and drug acquisition costs. Cost-effectiveness was compared using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), with sensitivity analyses applied to both efficacy and cost parameters.

RESULTS

In terms of patients achieving goal, rosuvastatin 10 mg dominated (was more effective at equal or lower cost) atorvastatin 10 and 20 mg, pravastatin 20 and 40 mg, branded simvastatin 10-80 mg and generic simvastatin 40 and 80 mg. Where rosuvastatin 10 mg did not dominate, ICERs ranged from 36 pounds sterling to 162 pounds sterling per extra patient to goal. Rosuvastatin 20 and 40 mg were cost-effective compared with milligram-equivalent and higher doses of other branded statins. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust to variations in both statin efficacy and price.

CONCLUSION

In patients with hypercholesterolaemia, rosuvastatin is a cost-effective statin option in treating to LDL-C goals.

Prevalence of adequate control of increased serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in self-pay or Medicare patients versus Medicaid or private insurance patients followed in a University General Medicine Clinic

In a study of 514 patients with increased serum low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol followed in a general medicine clinic at a university hospital, the serum LDL cholesterol in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD), other atherosclerotic vascular disease, or diabetes mellitus was <100 mg/dl in 219 of 276 patients (79%) with Medicaid or private insurance and in 28 of 67 self-pay or Medicare patients (42%) without pharmaceutical coverage (p <0.001). The serum LDL cholesterol was <130 mg/dl in patients with 2+ risk factor and a 10-year risk for CHD of < or =20% or <160 mg/dl in patients with a 0 to 1 risk factor, and a 10-year risk for CHD of <10% in 54 of 141 patients (38%) with Medicaid or private insurance and in 5 of 30 self-pay or Medicare patients (17%) (p <0.025).