Search

Introduction: Familial hypercholesterolemia is a common genetic condition that significantly increases an individual's risk of cardiovascular events such as heart attack, stroke, and cardiac death and is a candidate for population-wide screening programs. Economic analyses of strategies to identify and treat familial hypercholesterolemia are limited by a lack of real-world cost estimates for screening services and medications for reducing cardiovascular risk in this population., Methods: We estimated the cost of lipid panel testing in patients with hyperlipidemia and the cost of statins, ezetimibe, and PCKS9 inhibitors in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia from a commercial claims database and report costs and charges per panel and prescription by days' supply., Results: The mean cost for a 90-day supply for statins was $183.33, 2.3 times the mean cost for a 30-day supply at $79.35. PCSK9 inhibitors generated the highest mean costs among medications used by patients with familial hypercholesterolemia., Conclusions: Lipid testing and lipid-lowering medications for cardiovascular disease prevention generate substantial real-world costs which can be used to improve cost-effectiveness models of familial hypercholesterolemia screening and care management., (© 2024. Italian Society of Hypertension.)

Purpose: There is limited real-world evidence around use of proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) among US older adults. This study examined baseline characteristics of fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries newly initiating PCSK9i therapy during the period immediately following market availability., Methods: This cross-sectional study used Medicare claims (2013-2016) to identify 5051 FFS Medicare beneficiaries who filled ≥ 1 PCSK9i prescription between August 2015 and December 2016. We analyzed patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and baseline healthcare expenditures in the 12-month period prior to PCSK9i initiation, for these beneficiaries., Results: Most beneficiaries initiating PCSK9i were female (57%), < 75 years of age (61%), white (89%), and lived in metropolitan areas (83%). At baseline, these PCSK9i initiators had 6 chronic conditions on average, with conditions such as hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and ischemic heart disease being most prevalent. Approximately 88% had a diagnosis of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and 14% experienced acute cardiovascular events during the 12-month baseline period. Use of any statin and/or ezetimibe ranged from 54 to 76% in the 6-month and 24-month baseline period. Their total annual Medicare expenditures averaged US$17,552, of which most were attributable to ambulatory care and prescription use, in the 12-month baseline period., Conclusion: High burden of cardiovascular conditions and prescription expenditures at baseline were common among FFS beneficiaries initiating PCSK9i therapy. These findings suggest that physicians prescribe PCSK9i to elderly patients at high risk for adverse cardiovascular events. Considering the evolving treatment landscape, PCSK9i utilization might increase in Medicare., (© 2020. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Importance: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering therapies are a cornerstone of prevention in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. With the introduction of generic formulations and the release of new therapies, including proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, contemporary Medicare utilization of these therapies remains unknown., Objective: To determine trends in utilization and spending on brand-name and generic LDL-C-lowering therapies and to estimate potential savings if all Medicare beneficiaries were switched to available therapeutically equivalent generic formulations., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed prescription drug utilization and cost trend data from the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Event data set from 2014 to 2018 for LDL-C-lowering therapies. A total of 11 LDL-C-lowering drugs with 25 formulations, including 16 brand-name and 9 generic formulations, were included. Data were collected and analyzed from October 2019 to June 2020., Main Outcomes and Measures: Number of Medicare Part D beneficiaries, annual spending, and spending per beneficiary for all formulations., Results: The total number of Medicare Part D beneficiaries ranged from 37 720 840 in 2014 to 44 249 461 in 2018. The number of Medicare beneficiaries taking LDL-C-lowering therapies increased by 23% (from 20.5 million in 2014 to 25.2 million in 2018), while the associated Medicare expenditure decreased by 46% (from $6.3 billion in 2014 to $3.3 billion in 2018). Lower expenditure was driven by greater uptake of generic statin and ezetimibe and a concurrent rapid decline in the use of their brand-name formulations. Medicare spent $9.6 billion on brand-name statins and ezetimibe and could have saved $2.1 billion and $0.4 billion, respectively, if brand-name formulations were switched to equivalent generic versions when available. The number of beneficiaries using PCSK9 inhibitors since their introduction in 2015 has been modest, although use has increased by 144% (from 25 569 in 2016 to 62 476 in 2018) and total spending has increased by 199% (from $164 million in 2016 to $491 million in 2018)., Conclusions and Relevance: Between 2014 and 2018, LDL-C-lowering therapies were used by 4.8 million more Medicare beneficiaries annually, with an associated $3.0 billion decline in Medicare spending. This cost reduction was driven by the rapid transition from brand-name formulations to lower-cost generic formulations of statins and ezetimibe. Use of PCSK9 inhibitions, although low, increased over time and could have broad implications on future Medicare spending.

BACKGROUND: Multiple barriers exist for appropriate use of the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 enzyme inhibitors (PCSK9i) in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) with inadequately controlled hypercholesterolemia despite standard therapies. Among these barriers, high payer rejection rates and inadequate prior authorization (PA) documentation by providers hinder optimal use of PCSK9i. OBJECTIVES: To (a) identify and discuss provider and payer discordances on barriers to authorization and use of PCSK9i based on clinical and real-world evidence and (b) align understanding and application of clinical, cost, safety, and efficacy data of PCSK9i. METHODS: Local groups of 3 payers and 3 providers met in 6 separate locations across the United States through a collaborative project of AMCP and PRIME Education. Responses to selected pre- and postmeeting survey questions measured changes in attitudes and beliefs regarding treatment barriers, lipid thresholds for considering PCSK9i therapy, and tactics for improving PA processes. Statistical analysis of inter- and intragroup changes in attitudes were performed by Cox proportional hazards test and Fisher's exact test for < 5 variables. RESULTS: The majority of providers and payers (67%-78%) agreed that high patient copayments and inadequate PA documentation were significant barriers to PCSK9i usage. However, payers and providers differed on beliefs that current evidence does not support PCSK9i cost-effectiveness (6% providers, 56% payers; P = 0.003) and that PA presents excessive administrative burden (72% providers, 44% payers; P = 0.09) Average increases pre- to postmeeting were noted in provider beliefs that properly documented PA forms expedite access to PCSK9i (22%-50% increase) and current authorization criteria accurately distinguish patients who benefit most from PCSK9i (6%-22%). Payers decreased in their belief that current authorization criteria accurately distinguish benefiting patients (72%-50%). Providers and payers increased in their belief that PCSK9i are cost-effective (44%-61% and 28%-50%, respectively) and were more willing to consider PCSK9i at the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol threshold of > 70 mg/dL for patients with ASCVD (78%-83% and 44%-67%, respectively) or FH (22%-39% and 22%-33%). Payers were more agreeable to less stringent PA requirements for patients with FH (33%-72%, P = 0.019) and need for standardized PA requirements (50%-83%, P = 0.034); these considerations remained high (89%) among providers after the meeting. Most participants supported educational programs for patient treatment adherence (83%) and physician/staff PA processes (83%-94%). CONCLUSIONS: Provider and payer representatives in 6 distinct geographic locations provided recommendations to improve quality of care in patients eligible for PCSK9i. Participants also provided tactical recommendations for streamlining PA documentation processes and improving awareness of PCSK9i cost-effectiveness and clinical efficacy. The majority of participants supported development of universal, standardized patient eligibility criteria and PA forms. DISCLOSURES: The study reported in this article was part of a continuing education program funded by an independent educational grant awarded by Sanofi US and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals to PRIME Education. The grantor had no role in the study design, execution, analysis, or reporting. AMCP received grant funding from PRIME to assist in the study, as well as in writing the manuscript. McCormick, Bhatt, Bays, Taub, Caldwell, Guerin, Steinhoff, and Ahmad received an honorarium from PRIME for serving as faculty for the continuing education program. McCormick, Bhatt, Bays, Taub, Caldwell, Guerin, Steinhoff, and Ahmad were involved as participants in the study. Bhatt discloses the following relationships: Advisory board: Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, Level Ex, Medscape Cardiology, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regado Biosciences; Board of directors: Boston VA Research Institute, Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, TobeSoft; Chair: American Heart Association Quality Oversight Committee; Data monitoring committees: Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St. Jude Medical, now Abbott), Cleveland Clinic (including for the ExCEED trial, funded by Edwards), Contego Medical (Chair, PERFORMANCE 2), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for the ENVISAGE trial, funded by Daiichi Sankyo), Population Health Research Institute; Honoraria: American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; Vice chair , ACC Accreditation Committee), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute; RE-DUAL PCI clinical trial steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; AEGIS-II executive committee funded by CSL Behring), Belvoir Publications (Editor in Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including for the PRONOUNCE trial, funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (Editor in Chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology ), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Guest Editor; Associate Editor), K2P (Co-Chair, interdisciplinary curriculum), Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD (CME steering committees), MJH Life Sciences, Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and USA national co-leader, funded by Bayer), Slack Publications (Chief Medical Editor, Cardiology Today's Intervention ), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care (Secretary/Treasurer), WebMD (CME steering committees); Other: Clinical Cardiology (Deputy Editor), NCDR-ACTION Registry Steering Committee (Chair), VA CART Research and Publications Committee (Chair); Research funding: Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardax, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Synaptic, The Medicines Company; Royalties: Elsevier (Editor, Cardiovascular Intervention: A Companion to Braunwald's Heart Disease ); Site co-investigator: Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), Svelte; Trustee: American College of Cardiology; Unfunded research: FlowCo, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Takeda. Bays' research site has received research grants from 89Bio, Acasti, Akcea, Allergan, Alon Medtech/Epitomee, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Axsome, Boehringer Ingelheim, Civi, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Evidera, Gan and Lee, Home Access, Janssen, Johnson and Johnson, Lexicon, Matinas, Merck, Metavant, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Selecta, TIMI, and Urovant. Bays has served as a consultant/advisor for 89Bio, Amarin, Esperion, Matinas, and Gelesis, and speaker for Esperion. McCormick, Caldwell, Guerin, Ahmad, Singh, Moreo, Carter, Heggen, and Sapir have nothing to disclose.

Background: For patients with inadequate control of cholesterol using moderate-dose statins in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVD), either doubling the dose of statins or adding ezetimibe should be considered. The cost-effectiveness of them is unknown in the Chinese context. The aim of this study is to compare the cost and effectiveness of the two regimens, and estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)., Methods: A Markov model of five health statuses were used to estimate long-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of the two treatment regimens from the healthcare perspective. The effectiveness data used to calculate the transition probability was based on a previously published randomized trial. The utility data was gathered from literature and the costs were gathered from the electronic medical record system of West China Hospital in Chinese Yuan (CNY) in 2017 price. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted., Results: The ICER for ezetimibe plus moderate-dose rosuvastatin was 47,102.99 CNY per QALY for 20 years simulation, which did not reach the threshold of per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of 59,660 CNY per QALY in 2017 in China. Non-CVD-related mortality and CVD-related mortality contributed most to the ICER., Conclusion: Adding ezetimibe to the moderate-dose statin in secondary prevention for CVD is cost-effective, compared with the high-dose statin in the Chinese context whose low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) was not inadequately controlled by moderate-dose statin alone., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2020 Yang et al.)

Background: Using non-statin lipid-modifying agents in combination with statin therapy provides additional benefits for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduction, but their value for money has only been evaluated in high-income countries (HICs). Furthermore, studies mainly derive effectiveness data from a single trial or older meta-analyses., Objectives: Our study used data from the most recent network meta-analysis (NMA) and local parameters to assess the cost effectiveness of non-statin agents in statin-treated patients with a history of CVD., Methods: A published Markov model was adopted to investigate lifetime outcomes: (1) number of recurrent CVD events prevented, (2) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, (3) costs and (4) incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) and ezetimibe added to statin therapy. Event rates and effectiveness inputs were obtained from the NMA. Cost and utility data were gathered from published studies conducted in Thailand. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed., Results: Patients receiving PCSK9i and ezetimibe experienced fewer recurrent CVD events (number needed to treat [NNT] 17 and 30) and more QALYs (0.168 and 0.096 QALYs gained per person). However, under the societal perspective and at current acquisition costs in 2018, ICERs of both agents were $US1,223,995 and 27,361 per QALY gained, respectively. Based on threshold analyses, the costs need to be reduced by 97 and 85%, respectively, for PCSK9i and ezetimibe to be cost-effective., Conclusions: Despite the proven effectiveness of PCSK9i and ezetimibe, the costs of these agents need to reduce to a much greater extent than in HICs to be cost-effective in Thailand.

Background: The ODYSSEY Outcomes (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) trial included participants with a recent acute coronary syndrome. Compared with participants receiving statins alone, those receiving a statin plus alirocumab had lower rates of a composite outcome including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and death., Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of alirocumab in these circumstances., Design: Decision analysis using the Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model., Data Sources: Data sources representative of the United States combined with data from the ODYSSEY Outcomes trial., Target Population: U.S. adults with a recent first MI and a baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level of 1.81 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) or greater., Time Horizon: Lifetime., Perspective: U.S. health system., Intervention: Alirocumab or ezetimibe added to statin therapy., Outcome Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in 2018 U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained., Results of Base-Case Analysis: Compared with a statin alone, the addition of ezetimibe cost $81 000 (95% uncertainty interval [UI], $51 000 to $215 000) per QALY. Compared with a statin alone, the addition of alirocumab cost $308 000 (UI, $197 000 to $678 000) per QALY. Compared with the combination of statin and ezetimibe, replacing ezetimibe with alirocumab cost $997 000 (UI, $254 000 to dominated) per QALY., Results of Sensitivity Analysis: The price of alirocumab would have to decrease from its original cost of $14 560 to $1974 annually to be cost-effective relative to ezetimibe., Limitation: Effectiveness estimates were based on a single randomized trial with a median follow-up of 2.8 years and should not be extrapolated to patients with stable coronary heart disease., Conclusion: The price of alirocumab would have to be reduced considerably to be cost-effective. Because substantial reductions already have occurred, we believe that timely, independent cost-effectiveness analyses can inform clinical and policy discussions of new drugs as they enter the market., Primary Funding Source: University of California, San Francisco, and Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.

PCSK9i (protein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors) are set to revolutionize the treatment of hypercholesterolemia in the management of atherosclerotic risk, but numerous reports have detailed unprecedented barriers to access for these drugs. To overcome these challenges, our group created a model to facilitate provision of this new therapy for patients who qualify according to Food and Drug Administration criteria. This report details the real-world follow-up experience of PCSK9i use in a large patient cohort structured to ensure rigor in data collection, analysis, and interpretation. The 271 patients approved and actively followed in our PCSK9i clinic between July 2015 and August 2018 represent a 97% approval rate from insurance, with 28% of prescriptions requiring at least one appeal. Over 50% of patients were statin intolerant. On average, there was a median lapse of 15 days between initial visit and insurance approval. PCSK9i therapy was affordable for most patients, with an average monthly out-of-pocket expense of $58.05 (median $0). Only 2.3% of patients were unable to initiate or continue therapy because of cost. Reductions from baseline in LDL (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol and Lp(a) (lipoprotein [a])were comparable to published reports with median reductions of 60% and 23% at 1 year, respectively. PCSK9i therapy was well-tolerated overall, though 9% of patients reported adverse events, and 5% of patients discontinued due mostly to musculoskeletal and flu-like symptoms. Our practice model demonstrates that PCSK9i therapy can be accessed easily and affordably for the majority of eligible patients, resulting in dramatic improvement in lipid profile results. Moreover, our registry data suggest that results from the prospective clinical trials of PCSK9i on LDL and Lp(a) reduction and on tolerability are applicable to a real-world cohort.

Background: The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) issued new cholesterol treatment guidelines in 2013. Two of the groups designated for primary prevention were analyzed: patients with a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level ≥ 190 mg per dL and diabetic patients aged 40-75 years., Objective: To estimate the effects of primary prevention as specified in the 2013 guidelines on cardiovascular event risk and cost., Methods: Primary prevention patients were identified using laboratory and diagnostic data for Humana members from 2007 to 2013. Potential study patients were classified into 3 risk groups: elevated LDL-C, diabetes, and elevated LDL-C and diabetes. Patients receiving cholesterol-lowering medications before their index date were excluded. Eligible patients were divided into 2 treatment groups: (1) primary prevention patients who initiated treatment before experiencing any cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related event, and (2) patients who either did not initiate treatment until after experiencing a CVD event or never initiated treatment. The associations between initiating cholesterol-lowering medications for primary prevention and the risk for acute myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary angioplasty, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. The effect of primary prevention on health care costs was estimated using generalized linear models., Results: 91,066 patients met study selection criteria. Primary prevention rates were the lowest in diabetic patients (35%), who were newly designated for treatment in the 2013 guidelines. Primary prevention rates were higher for patients designated for treatment under earlier guidelines: 65% for patients with elevated LDL-C and 78% for the combined LDL-C and diabetes group. Primary prevention treatment was associated with significant reductions in cardiovascular event risk (up to 37%) and lower total all-cause costs (by $673) in the first post-index year., Conclusions: Initiating cholesterol-lowering medications for primary prevention, as specified in the ACC/AHA 2013 guidelines, for patients with high LDL-C and diabetes is associated with reduced CVD event risks and lower health care costs., Disclosures: No outside funding supported this study. Han received fellowship support from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association Foundation (PhRMA) during the conduct of this study. Dougherty is employed by PhRMA. The authors have nothing to disclose.

Introduction: Evolocumab is fully human monoclonal antibody which binds to proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9), and prevents its blocking effect on recycling of liver low-density lipoprotein (LDL) receptors. Areas covered: The aim of this review is to assess efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of evolocumab in adult patients with high cardiovascular risk. Major research databases MEDLINE, EBSCO, and CENTRAL were systematically searched for relevant study reports. Expert commentary: Even when given in full doses, statins augmented with ezetimibe and cholesterol-binding resins could not reduce cholesterol baseline level for more than 66%, while evolocumab reduces cholesterol level for 75% or even more. Up to now, evolocumab showed good safety profile, and patents tolerate it very well. The abovementioned advantages of evolocumab made it almost ideal drug for hypercholesterolemia, and probably in the future the best drug for secondary prevention of major cardiovascular events. Evolocumab is borderline cost-effective for the treatment of patients with high cardiovascular risk in European countries, while in the U.S.A. it is under debate where the underlying assumption (risk of cardiovascular disease events) determine the true value.

Understanding the molecular defects underlying cardiovascular disease is necessary for the development of therapeutics. The most common method to lower circulating lipids, which reduces the incidence of cardiovascular disease, is statins, but other drugs are now entering the clinic, some of which have been approved. Nevertheless, patients cannot tolerate some of these therapeutics, the drugs are costly, and/or the treatments are approved for only rare forms of disease. Efforts to find alternative treatments have focused on other factors, such as apolipoproteinB (apoB), which transports cholesterol in the blood stream. The levels of apoB are regulated by endoplasmic reticulum (ER) associated degradation as well as by a post ER degradation pathway in model systems, and we suggest that these events provide novel therapeutic targets. We discuss first how cardiovascular disease arises and how cholesterol is regulated, and then summarize the mechanisms of action of existing treatments for cardiovascular disease. We then review the apoB biosynthetic pathway, focusing on steps that might be amenable to therapeutic interventions., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: This review aims to explore and summarize the current literature on the cardiovascular disease (CVD) healthcare burden and determine the cost-effectiveness of the PCSK9 inhibitors., Recent Findings: The CVD remain the largest cause of mortality in the USA presenting substantial healthcare cost burden reaching $555 billion in 2016 and projected to rise to $1.1 trillion by 2035. The PCSK9 inhibitors have shown strong efficacy in LDLC lowering, but its price of ~ 14,000-14,600 per patient per year coupled with ~ 2.2-2.8 years of cardiovascular outcome data has created many controversies surrounding its cost-effectiveness. To determine the cost-effectiveness of the PCSK9 inhibitors, various simulation models and risk-based stratification and case-by-case patient approachs have yielded divisive data which need to be reassessed as per the ODYSSEY and long-term CVD outcomes. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the long-term CVD event rates of patients on the PCSK9 inhibitors to determine its true cost-effectiveness.

The clinical importance and benefit of the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors appears well established for the high-risk cardiovascular (CV) patient. This applies especially to the statin-intolerant patient or the patient who does not attain an appropriate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) target. Therefore, the barriers to appropriate clinical use of the PCSK9 inhibitors involve cost and not the documented CV benefit or LDL-C lowering. Multiple roadblocks affect many high-risk CV patients in arranging approval of a PCSK9 inhibitor. Overcoming these roadblocks may require legal pressures, some increased regulation, and facilitation by competitive forces.

Introduction: The proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor is a new treatment option for patients with hypercholesterolemia. The objective of this study was to systematically review the cost-effectiveness of lipid-lowering agents., Areas Covered: Based on Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, we identified 29 relevant articles. Studies found statins were cost-effective compared with placebo or no treatment in general. Atorvastatin was reported to be cost-effective against simvastatin. In most cases, rosuvastatin was more cost-effective than atorvastatin or simvastatin. Additionally, ezetimibe was considered to be cost-effective compared with no treatment for statin intolerant patients. For patients not meeting treatment goals with their statins, switching to ezetimibe plus simvastatin was consistently reported cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness of ezetimibe plus a hybrid of a statin varied by the source of clinical data and cost of ezetimibe. Finally, the cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 inhibitor plus a statin against statin monotherapy was uncertain. The PCSK9 inhibitor plus a stain was cost-ineffective compared with ezetimibe plus a statin., Expert Commentary: Drug costs and treatment efficacy were the key drivers of the cost-effectiveness results in prior analyses. Future evaluations are warranted to reflect the decreasing drug prices and the long-term treatment effects of PCSK9 inhibitors.

Aims: Despite the success of statins, there remains unmet clinical need in cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. New proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by 55-65%. Two PCSK9 inhibitors, evolocumab, and alirocumab, were approved for use in Norway but not yet for reimbursement through public national insurance. We aim to explore the cost-effectiveness of these compared with available treatments in a Norwegian setting., Methods and Results: A state transition Markov model was developed to model the cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 inhibitors for prevention of coronary heart disease, ischaemic strokes, and death among high-risk patient subpopulations in Norway, in both primary and secondary settings. Evolocumab and alirocumab are compared against ezetimibe and standard treatment. Risk of CVD is based on population incidence rates and adjusted according to baseline risk factors. Preventative effect of treatment was modelled according to absolute reduction in LDL-C. PCSK9 inhibitors were never found to be cost-effective in primary prevention. In secondary prevention they were cost-effective only for older, high-risk patients. The lowest cost-effectiveness ratios were for heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia patients and high-risk diabetics, with €63 200 and €68 400 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively., Conclusion: High lifetime costs of PCSK9 inhibitors may not be offset by estimated health gains for most eligible patients. PCSK9 inhibitors are found in the model only to be cost-effective in secondary prevention for older patients with high absolute risk of CVD. This picture is likely to change as price decreases. Future research is needed to determine the long-term preventative effects of PCSK9 inhibitors., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Importance: Preliminary cost-effectiveness analyses of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor (PCSK9i) were based on benefits estimated from reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol that occurred in PCSK9i trials with variable results. The recent Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects with Elevated Risk (FOURIER) trial provides better information about the effectiveness of the drug., Objective: To use the trial results to determine the cost-effectiveness of a PCSK9i and statin treatment strategy compared with a statin alone strategy., Design, Setting, and Participants: We derived observed rates of events, outcomes, cost of care, and health insurance from existing literature for a theoretical cohort of patients designed to resemble the FOURIER PCSK9i trial population and created a Markov model during the time horizon of a full lifetime., Main Outcomes and Measures: We evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from a health system perspective, and the return on investment from a private payer perspective. For both measures, we assumed an annual PCSK9i drug price of $14 300, with a lapse in US patent protection that would reduce the price by 43% in year 12. Costs were reported in 2016 US dollars., Results: This study modeled 1000 hypothetical patients with attributes similar to those of the FOURIER trial cohort. At the current price, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of statin plus PCSK9i therapy was $337 729 per quality-adjusted life-year. Our probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that a statin plus PCSK9i strategy had a low probability (<1%) of being cost effective at the commonly accepted societal threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Furthermore, PCSK9i produced a negative return on investment of 86% for private payers. In our threshold analysis, the price of PCSK9i would need to drop 62%, to $5459 per year, to reach $100 000 per quality-adjusted life year., Conclusions and Relevance: At current prices, the addition of PCSK9i to statin therapy is estimated to provide an additional quality-adjusted life year for $337 729 . Significant discounts are necessary to meet conventional cost-effectiveness standards.

Background: Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, Praluent (alirocumab [ALI]) and Repatha (evolocumab [EVO]) have been approved as adjuncts to the standard-of-care maximal-tolerated dose (MTD) of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC)-lowering therapy (LLT), statin therapy, in heterozygous (HeFH) (ALI or EVO) or homozygous (EVO) familial hypercholesterolemia, or clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) where LDLC lowering is insufficient (both). Since LDLC lowering has been revolutionized by ALI and EVO, specialty pharmaceutical pricing models will be applied to a mass market., Methods: We applied US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and insurance eligibility criteria for ALI and EVO to 1090 hypercholesterolemic patients serially referred over 3 years who then received ≥2 months maximal-tolerated dose of standard-of-care LDL cholesterol-lowering therapy (MTDLLT) with follow-up LDLC ≥70 mg/dL. MTDLLT did not include ALI or EVO, which had not been commercially approved before completion of this study., Results: Of the 1090 patients, 140 (13%) had HeFH by clinical diagnostic criteria and/or CVD with LDLC >100 mg/dL despite ≥2 months on MTDLLT, meeting FDA insurance criteria for ALI or EVO therapy. Another 51 (5%) patients were statin intolerant, without HeFH or CVD., Conclusion: If 13% of patients with HeFH-CVD and LDLC >100 mg/dL despite MTDLLT are eligible for ALI or EVO, then specialty pharmaceutical pricing models (~$14,300/year) might be used in an estimated 10 million HeFH-CVD patients. Whether the health care savings arising from the anticipated reduction of CVD events by ALI or EVO justify their costs in populations with HeFH-CVD and LDLC >100 mg/dL despite MTDLLT remains to be determined., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Aim: To estimate real-world cardiovascular disease (CVD) burden and value-based price range of evolocumab for a US-context, high-risk, secondary-prevention population., Materials and Methods: Burden of CVD was assessed using the UK-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) in order to capture complete CV burden including CV mortality. Patients on standard of care (SOC; high-intensity statins) in CPRD were selected based on eligibility criteria of FOURIER, a phase 3 CV outcomes trial of evolocumab, and categorized into four cohorts: high-risk prevalent atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD) cohort (n = 1448), acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (n = 602), ischemic stroke (IS) (n = 151), and heart failure (HF) (n = 291) incident cohorts. The value-based price range for evolocumab was assessed using a previously published economic model. The model incorporated CPRD CV event rates and considered CV event reduction rate ratios per 1 mmol/L reduction in low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) from a meta-analysis of statin trials by the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists Collaboration (CTTC), i.e. CTTC relationship., Results: Multiple-event rates of composite CV events (ACS, IS, or coronary revascularization) per 100 patient-years were 12.3 for the high-risk prevalent ASCVD cohort, and 25.7, 13.3, and 23.3, respectively, for incident ACS, IS, and HF cohorts. Approximately one-half (42%) of the high-risk ASCVD patients with a new CV event during follow-up had a subsequent CV event. Combining these real-world event rates and the CTTC relationship in the economic model, the value-based price range (credible interval) under a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/quality-adjusted life-year gained for evolocumab was $11,990 ($9,341-$14,833) to $16,856 ($12,903-$20,678) in ASCVD patients with baseline LDL-C levels ≥70 mg/dL and ≥100 mg/dL, respectively., Conclusion: Real-world CVD burden is substantial. Using the observed CVD burden in CPRD and the CTTC relationship, the cost-effectiveness analysis showed that, accounting for uncertainties, the expected value-based price for evolocumab is higher than its current annual cost, as long as the payer discount off list price is greater than 20%.

Purpose of the Study: Statins and ezetimibe reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors lower LDL-c by 50%-70% and might be useful in refractory patients. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisal guidance (TAG) recommends use of these drugs in secondary prevention and familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) at differing LDL-c thresholds. We have estimated the proportion of patients in whom this third-line drug might be useful., Study Design: We used data from a lipid-lowering audit programme to study 72 with FH and/or CVD of 271 patients referred over 12 months who failed to achieve target total cholesterol (TC) and LDL-c levels. All 72 patients were treated with ezetimibe, and 69 cases also received statins. We used LDL-c thresholds 1.5-5.5 mmol/L to estimate how many of these refractory patients could benefit from PCSK9 inhibitors., Results: In 72 patients, TC and LDL-c targets were not met by 64 and 53 patients, respectively. We judged using the NICE TAG that only one patient (1.4% ezetimibe requiring and 0.4% total referrals) required a PCSK9 inhibitor., Conclusions: We determined that the proportion of patients eligible for a PCSK9 inhibitor at various TC and LDL-c levels is modest. This may reflect the use of all available statins in UK lipid clinics often at non-daily frequency. We suggest that cost-effective use of PCSK9 inhibitors requires prescribing being restricted to clinicians working in specialised lipid clinics., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Long-term use of statin therapy is essential to obtain clinical benefits, but adherence is often suboptimal and some patients are also reported to fail because of 'statin resistance'. The identification of PCSK9 as a key factor in the LDL clearance pathway has led to the development of new monoclonal antibodies. Here we critically review the economic evaluations published in Europe and focused on statins. We searched the PubMed database to select the studies published from July 2006 to June 2016 and finally selected 19 articles. Overall, the majority of studies were conducted from a third-party payer's viewpoint and recurred to modelling. Most studies were sponsored by industry and funding seemed to play a pivotal role in the study design. Patients resistant to LDL-C level reduction were considered only in a few studies. The place in therapy of the new class of biologic should be considered a kind of 'third line' for cholesterol-lowering, after patients have failed with restricted dietary regimens and then with current drug therapies. Otherwise they could result in hardly sustainable expenses even for developed countries.

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.

Objectives: To characterise the costs to the UK National Health Service of cardiovascular (CV) events among individuals receiving lipid-modifying therapy., Design: Retrospective cohort study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink records from 2006 to 2012 to identify individuals with their first and second CV-related hospitalisations (first event and second event cohorts). Within-person differences were used to estimate CV-related outcomes., Setting: Patients in the UK who had their first CV event between January 2006 and March 2012., Participants: Patients ≥18 years who had a CV event and received at least 2 lipid-modifying therapy prescriptions within 180 days beforehand., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Direct medical costs (2014 £) were estimated in 3 periods: baseline (pre-event), acute (6 months afterwards) and long-term (subsequent 30 months). Primary outcomes included incremental costs, resource usage and total costs per period., Results: There were 24 093 patients in the first event cohort of whom 5274 were included in the second event cohort. The mean incremental acute CV event costs for the first event and second event cohorts were: coronary artery bypass graft/percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (CABG/PTCA) £5635 and £5823, myocardial infarction £4275 and £4301, ischaemic stroke £3512 and £4572, heart failure £2444 and £3461, unstable angina £2179 and £2489 and transient ischaemic attack £1537 and £1814. The mean incremental long-term costs were: heart failure £848 and £2829, myocardial infarction £922 and £1385, ischaemic stroke £973 and £682, transient ischaemic attack £705 and £1692, unstable angina £328 and £677, and CABG/PTCA £-368 and £599. Hospitalisation accounted for 95% of acute and 61% of long-term incremental costs. Higher comorbidity was associated with higher long-term costs., Conclusions: Revascularisation and myocardial infarction were associated with the highest incremental costs following a CV event. On the basis of real-world data, the economic burden of CV events in the UK is substantial, particularly among those with greater comorbidity burden., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Randomized trials have shown marked reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), when evolocumab is administered. We hypothesized that evolocumab added to standard of care (SOC) vs SOC alone is cost-effective in the treatment of patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) or atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD) with or without statin intolerance and LDL-C >100 mg/dL. Using a Markov cohort state transition model, primary and recurrent CVD event rates were predicted considering population-specific trial-based mean risk factors and calibrated against observed rates in the real world. The LDL-C-lowering effect from population-specific phase 3 randomized studies for evolocumab was used together with estimated LDL-C-lowering effect on CVD event rates per 38.67-mg/dL LDL-C lowering from a statin-trial meta-analysis. Costs and utilities were included from published sources. Evolocumab treatment was associated with both increased cost and improved quality-adjusted life-years (QALY): HeFH (incremental cost: US$153 289, incremental QALY: 2.02, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: US$75 863/QALY); ASCVD (US$158 307, 1.12, US$141 699/QALY); and ASCVD with statin intolerance (US$136 903, 1.36, US$100 309/QALY). Evolocumab met both the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and World Health Organization (WHO) thresholds in each population evaluated. Sensitivity and scenario analyses confirmed that model results were robust to changes in model parameters. Among patients with HeFH and ASCVD with or without statin intolerance, evolocumab added to SOC may provide a cost-effective treatment option for lowering LDL-C using ACC/AHA intermediate/high value and WHO cost-effectiveness thresholds. More definitive information on the clinical and economic value of evolocumab will be available from the forthcoming CVD outcomes study., (© 2016 The Authors. Clinical Cardiology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Simvastatin, 20mg, plus ezetimibe, 10mg, daily (simvastatin plus ezetimibe) reduced major atherosclerotic events in patients with moderate to severe chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP), but its cost-effectiveness is unknown., Study Design: Cost-effectiveness of simvastatin plus ezetimibe in SHARP, a randomized controlled trial., Setting & Population: 9,270 patients with CKD randomly assigned to simvastatin plus ezetimibe versus placebo; participants in categories by 5-year cardiovascular risk (low, <10%; medium, 10%-<20%; or high, ≥20%) and CKD stage (3, 4, 5 not on dialysis, or on dialysis therapy)., Model, Perspective, & Timeline: Assessment during SHARP follow-up from the UK perspective; long-term projections., Intervention: Simvastatin plus ezetimibe (2015 UK £1.19 per day) during 4.9 years' median follow-up in SHARP; scenario analyses with high-intensity statin regimens (2015 UK £0.05-£1.06 per day)., Outcomes: Additional health care costs per major atherosclerotic event avoided and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained., Results: In SHARP, the proportional reductions per 1mmol/L of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol reduction with simvastatin plus ezetimibe in all major atherosclerotic events of 20% (95% CI, 6%-32%) and in the costs of vascular hospital episodes of 17% (95% CI, 4%-28%) were similar across participant categories by cardiovascular risk and CKD stage. The 5-year reduction in major atherosclerotic events per 1,000 participants ranged from 10 in low-risk to 58 in high-risk patients and from 28 in CKD stage 3 to 36 in patients on dialysis therapy. The net cost per major atherosclerotic event avoided with simvastatin plus ezetimibe compared to no LDL-lowering regimen ranged from £157,060 in patients at low risk to £15,230 in those at high risk (£30,500-£39,600 per QALY); and from £47,280 in CKD stage 3 to £28,180 in patients on dialysis therapy (£13,000-£43,300 per QALY). In scenario analyses, generic high-intensity statin regimens were estimated to yield similar benefits at substantially lower cost., Limitations: High-intensity statin-alone regimens were not studied in SHARP., Conclusions: Simvastatin plus ezetimibe prevented atherosclerotic events in SHARP, but other less costly statin regimens are likely to be more cost-effective for reducing cardiovascular risk in CKD., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To measure the costs of a polypill strategy and compare them with those of usual care in people with established cardiovascular disease (CVD) or at similarly high cardiovascular risk., Design: A within-trial cost analysis of polypill-based care versus usual care with separate medications, using data from the Kanyini Guidelines Adherence with the Polypill (GAP) trial and linked health service and medication administrative claims data., Participants: Kanyini GAP participants who consented to Australian Medicare record access., Main Outcome Measures: Mean health service and pharmaceutical expenditure per patient per year, estimated with generalised linear models. Costs during the trial (randomisation January 2010 - May 2012, median follow-up 19 months, maximum follow-up 36 months) were inflated to 2012 costs., Results: Our analysis showed a statistically significantly lower mean pharmaceutical expenditure of $989 (95% CI, $648-$1331) per patient per year in the polypill arm compared with usual care (P < 0.001; adjusted, excluding polypill cost). No significant difference was shown in health service expenditure., Conclusions: This study provides evidence of significant cost savings to the taxpayer and Australian Government through the introduction of a CVD polypill strategy. The savings will be less now than during the trial due to subsequent reductions in the costs of usual care. Nonetheless, given the prevalence of CVD in Australia, the introduction of this polypill could increase considerably the efficiency of health care expenditure in Australia., Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN126080005833347.

Recent trials in cardiovascular medicine have contradicted current practice, and, accordingly, are medical reversals. Extended-release niacin and fenofibrate have failed to provide mortality benefit when added to statin therapy, though both drugs have been used for this purpose for years. Cardiovascular primary prevention is no small matter. Annual spending on statins exceeded $19 billion in 2005, ezetimibe cost over $5 billion in 2007, and fenofibrate costs passed $1 billion in 2009. Given the tremendous price of these medications, and recent trials that have undermined years of practice, we propose that the bar for cardiovascular primary prevention has been raised. Large studies must show improvements in overall mortality before novel agents are recommended and used. The implications of this proposal are considered.

Introduction: Statins play a crucial role in modern cardiological pharmacotherapy. For the patient, as the beneficiary of an effective pharmacotherapy, it is of utmost importance that his or her physician can take maximum advantage of the whole potential of the available medications., Objectives: The aim of the study was to analyse the effectiveness of statin treatment in Polish patients treated in an ambulatory setting, in view of the European Society of Cardiology guidelines., Patients and Methods: The study was conducted on 49,950 ambulatory patients from Poland (women--53%, men--47%). The questionnaire consisted of 43 questions and was completed by a physician based on the results of physical examination, medical records, lipid profile, and additional tests. Twenty-eight per cent of the patients were obese, 37% were overweight, and more than 26% were smokers. The mean blood pressure was 142.9/84.0 mmHg (±18.5/11.6 mmHg). The target objectives of the pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension were achieved in less than 25% of the study population. Nearly 50% of the patients had coronary artery disease, 20% had myocardial infarction, and 10% had transient ischemic attack or cerebral stroke. More than 30% of the patients had diabetes mellitus., Results: The most commonly used statins were atorvastatin and simvastatin (49.1% vs. 44.8%, respectively; P <0.05). Almost 71% of the patients received the daily statin dose of <20 mg. Mean total cholesterol (TC) was 244.9 mg/dl, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol--55 mg/dl, and triglycerides--180 mg/dl. TC levels of <190 mg/dl were achieved in 1 in 6 patients, and LDL levels of <115 mg/dl in less than 21% of the patients., Conclusions: Despite the recommendation to administer statins at higher than minimum doses in primary and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease, this drug class is still underestimated by general practitioners.

Use of common guidelines for primary prevention of cardiovascular events based on 10-year risk results in undertreatment of younger individuals, especially women, since age and sex are major determinants of global risk. Women in their late 40s have a 10-year risk lower than the 10% threshold used for cholesterol-lowering treatment even in the presence of marked elevations of blood pressure or cholesterol. Removal of age from risk algorithms and use of lifetime global risk to treat individuals according to the degree of their modifiable risk factors rather than demographics has been proposed. Initiation of therapy at younger ages, aiming at "primordial" prevention of atherosclerotic disease rather than focusing on cardiovascular events, will result in saving more quality-adjusted life-years. Generic medications can be obtained at an affordable cost, and concerns about long-term safety and efficacy can be tested in a clinical trial of younger individuals at low 10-year risk but high lifetime risk., (2009 Wiley Periodical, Inc.)

The Treating to New Targets (TNT) clinical trial found that intensive 80 mg atorvastatin (A80) treatment reduced cardiovascular events by 22% when compared to 10 mg atorvastatin (A10) treatment. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of intensive A80 vs A10 treatment in the United Kingdom (UK), Spain, and Germany. A lifetime Markov model was developed to predict cardiovascular disease-related events, costs, survival, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Treatment-specific event probabilities were estimated from the TNT clinical trial. Post-event survival, health-related quality of life, and country-specific medical-care costs were estimated using published sources. Intensive treatment with A80 increased both the per-patient QALYs and corresponding costs of care, when compared to the A10 treatment, in all three countries. The incremental cost per QALY gained was 9,500, 21,000, and 15,000 in the UK, Spain, and Germany, respectively. Intensive A80 treatment is estimated to be cost-effective when compared to A10 treatment in secondary cardiovascular prevention.

Background: Ezetimibe has been reported to improve lipid control in patients with established cardiovascular disease (CVD)., Objective: The aim of this study was to estimate the potential long-term impact on health status of prescribing ezetimibe in combination with statin therapy in patients with established CVD and evaluate its cost-effectiveness in a health economic model., Methods: A Markov model was used to compare ezetimibe and statin combination therapy with statin monotherapy. A published relationship linking changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular events was used to estimate the cardiovascular events avoided through lipid-lowering therapies. The model was populated using results of extensive literature searches and a meta-analysis of clinical evidence. An adjustment was applied to model second-line lipid-lowering benefits. Conservative assumptions were used to extend the patient pathway beyond the clinical evidence. The analysis took the perspective of the UK Department of Health; therefore, only direct costs were included. Costs were calculated as year-2006 British pounds., Results: For a cohort of 1,000 hypothetical male patients aged 55 years, ezetimibe coadministered with current statin therapy was estimated to prevent a mean of 43 nonfatal myocardial infarctions, 7 nonfatal strokes, and 26 cardiovascular deaths over a lifetime, compared with doubling the current statin dose. The events avoided would provide a mean of 134 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). With a mean incremental cost of pound 3,693,000, the lifetime discounted cost per QALY gained would be pound 27,475 (95% CI, pound 27,331- pound 27,620) and would rise to pound 32,000 for men aged 75 years., Conclusions: The results suggest that, in some instances, ezetimibe coadministration may be cost-effective compared with statin monotherapy, but there are several limitations with this model. The economic effects of ezetimibe must be revisited when long-term effectiveness and safety data become available.

Introduction: The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the cost effectiveness of ezetemibe coadministration compared to a shift to higher doses of simvastatin or to a more potent statin., Materials and Methods: The calculations are based on a Markov model in which a patient who does not attain the desired cholesterol outcome with simvastatin treatment is treated either with ezetemibe coadministration, or with increased simvastatin doses, or with a more potent statin. Calculations are conducted for a total of 72 different patient types followed over the remainder of their lives., Results: Ezetemibe coadministration evaluated over the entire lifetime will be somewhat more expensive than simvastatin titration but must, however, be seen in relation to improved survival and increased quality of life. For the typical patient, treatment will be associated with costs of between DKK 50,000 and 100,000 per gained year of life, which cannot be deemed too expensive in relation to other interventions provided by the Health Authorities. For some patient types who receive treatment with a potent statin (atorvastatin), savings will also be possible here as well as an increase in life expectancy and quality of life., Conclusion: The results of the study indicate that ezetemibe coadministration is cost effective. The results are sustainable even with quite significant changes of the estimates used and taking into account uncertainties in the material and methods.

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.

Objective: The clinical literature suggests that atorvastatin therapy achieves a reduction in major cardiovascular events within the first year of therapy. Aside from obvious clinical benefits, economic advantage may also result from this observation. The present analysis modeled the clinical and economic consequences of initiating atorvastatin versus generic simvastatin in defined US managed care organization patient populations., Research Design and Methods: A cost-consequence model was developed to estimate the differential rate and associated costs of cardiovascular events occurring over 2 years using real world price and adherence data. Four defined patient populations were included from representative atorvastatin trials: (1) diabetes mellitus; (2) multiple risk factors; (3) coronary heart disease; and (4) acute coronary syndrome. Costs of care included drug costs and costs of managing cardiovascular events. Univariate sensitivity analyses and multivariate sensitivity analysis via Monte Carlo simulation were conducted to test the robustness of the results., Main Outcome Measures: The number of cardiovascular events avoided per 100,000 patients initiated on atorvastatin as compared with simvastatin, and total treatment costs., Results: The model predicts that, relative to simvastatin, atorvastatin will prevent 941 (95% confidence interval [CI] 481-1367) cardiovascular events after 1 year and 1426 (95% CI 833-1987) events after 2 years, per 100,000 patients. This is expected to reduce the cost of cardiovascular events by $365 (95% CI $192-$527) and $552 (95% CI $327-$763) per patient (US$ 2006), respectively, offsetting 80% and 75% of the medication cost difference between atorvastatin and simvastatin after 1 and 2 years, respectively. The incremental costs associated with atorvastatin treatment were estimated at $94 (95% CI -$68 to $267) and $175 (95% CI -$37 to $399) per patient after 1 and 2 years, respectively. Results were sensitive to assumptions regarding simvastatin efficacy and drug acquisition costs., Conclusions: Although the present analysis is based in part on indirect comparisons and on trials not designed or statistically powered to specifically test the early benefits hypothesis, it suggests that atorvastatin's assumed early reduction of cardiovascular events partly offsets the acquisition price difference between atorvastatin and generic simvastatin in various groups of high-risk patients newly initiated on statin treatment.

Pfizer Inc. recently discontinued its billion-dollar investment and phase III clinical trial of their new high-density lipoprotein (HDL) or "good cholesterol" boosting drug torceptrapib because of unexpected life-threatening side effects. To provide an objective discussion with patients looking for the next miracle drug or even dietary supplement in medicine, it is important to provide an overview of the history of this drug. It should serve as an important lesson that traditional lifestyle factors and proven heart healthy medications have stood the test of time in terms of research. Despite the current interest in drug development, traditional HDL-boosting lifestyle initiatives such as exercise, weight loss, and smoking cessation can be incorporated now and are heart and urologic healthy.

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.

Introduction: A promising concept in cardiovascular disease prevention (the polypill) was introduced in 2003. Although the polypill may seem as an effective intervention, data on its costs and cost effectiveness remain unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the maximum price of the polypill for it to be a cost effective alternative in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease., Methods: Data on the hypothetical effects of the polypill were taken from the literature. Using data from the Framingham heart study and the Framingham offspring study, life tables were built to model the assumed benefits of the polypill. Using a third party payer perspective and a 10 years time horizon, the authors calculated what should be the maximum drug cost of the polypill for it to be cost effective (using a 20,000 euro/year of life saved threshold) in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease among populations at different levels of absolute risk of coronary heart disease and age., Results: To be cost effective among populations at levels of 10 year coronary heart disease risk over 20% (high risk), the annual cost of medication for the polypill therapy should be no more than 302 euro or 410 euro for men at age 50 and 60 years respectively. For cost effective prevention in populations at levels of coronary heart disease risk between 10% and 20% the costs should be two to three times lower., Conclusion: Although the polypill could theoretically be a highly effective intervention, the costs of the medication could be its caveat for implementation in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Background: In The Netherlands, costs of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin) use have recently increased sharply compared with costs of other drugs. However, several studies have established both undertreatment and non-guidelines-indicated treatment with statins, suggesting a suboptimal use of resources., Objective: To estimate the drug costs associated with non-guidelines-indicated treatment and undertreatment with statins in an elderly population., Patients and Setting: Data were obtained from the Rotterdam Study, a population-based prospective cohort study which began in 1990 with 7983 participants aged > or =55 years. Subjects with a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) were excluded. Pharmacy records were used to assess patterns of medication use in daily medical practice., Main Outcome Measure: Non-guidelines-indicated treatment and undertreatment with statins were established in relation to Dutch cholesterol management guidelines for all participants. We calculated the costs of statin therapy associated with non-guidelines-indicated treatment, and the costs of statins if all those undertreated were to receive statins. The results were projected on to the Dutch population to determine the economic implications of non-adherence to cholesterol management guidelines in the elderly., Results: Of the participants who started treatment with statins for the primary prevention of CVD during follow-up, 69% received non-guidelines-indicated treatment. More men (7.5%) were undertreated than women (1.6%) and more women (6.2%) received non-guidelines-indicated treatment than men (1.5%). Among the participants without CVD who were still alive at 1 January 2002, 14% were eligible for statin therapy but were untreated. After projection of the prevalence of non-guidelines-indicated treatment and undertreatment to the Dutch population, the absolute costs for non-guidelines-indicated treatment with statins in 2005 were estimated to be approximately 23 million euro(uncertainty limits [UL]: 19-28 million euro), while the cost to eliminate undertreatment was also 23 million euro (UL: 19-28 million euro)., Conclusion: Reallocation of resources used for statin therapy from those receiving non-guidelines-indicated treatment to those being undertreated could lead to a more efficient use of resources.

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.