The cost-effectiveness of intensive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering in people with peripheral artery disease.

BACKGROUND: People with peripheral artery disease are at a high risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major adverse limb events (MALE). Randomized controlled trials suggest that intensive lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) with proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors is an effective strategy to prevent these events. This study estimated the potential benefit and cost-effectiveness of administrating PCSK9 inhibitors to a cohort of participants with peripheral artery disease. METHODS: A total of 783 participants with intermittent claudication (IC; n = 582) or chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI; n = 201) were prospectively recruited from three hospitals in Australia. Serum LDL-C was measured at recruitment, and the occurrence of MACE and MALE was recorded over a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 2.2 years (0.3-5.7 years). The potential benefit of administering a PCSK9 inhibitor was estimated by calculating the absolute risk reduction and numbers needed to treat (NNT) based on relative risk reductions reported in published randomized trials. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year gained was estimated. RESULTS: Intensive LDL-C lowering was estimated to lead to an absolute risk reduction in MACE of 6.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-9.3; NNT, 16) and MALE of 13.7% (95% CI, 4.3-21.5; NNT, 7) in people with CLTI compared with 3.2% (95% CI, 1.1-4.8; NNT, 32) and 5.3% (95% CI, 1.7-8.3; NNT, 19) in people with IC. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios over a 10-year period were $55,270 USD and $32,800 USD for participants with IC and CLTI, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that treatment with a PCSK9 inhibitor is likely to be cost-effective in people with CLTI.

The Potential Benefits and Costs of an Intensified Approach to Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Lowering in People with Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to assess the incidence of major vascular events (MVE) and peripheral vascular events (PVE) in people with a small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and model the theoretical benefits and costs of an intensified low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering programme. METHODS: A total of 583 participants with AAAs measuring 30 - 54 mm were included in this study. The control of LDL-C and prescription of lipid lowering drugs were assessed by dividing participants into approximately equal tertiles depending on their year of recruitment into the study. The occurrence of MVE (myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular death, and coronary or non-coronary revascularisation) and PVE (non-coronary revascularisation, AAA repair, and major amputation) were recorded prospectively, and the incidence of these events was calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. The relative risk reduction reported for these events in a previous randomised control trial (RCT) was then applied to these figures to model the absolute risk reduction and numbers needed to treat (NTT) that could theoretically be achieved with a mean LDL-C lowering of 1 mmol/L. The maximum allowable expense for a cost effective intensive LDL-C lowering programme was estimated using a cost utility analysis. RESULTS: At entry, only 28.5% of participants had an LDL-C of < 1.8 mmol/L and only 18.5% were prescribed a high potency statin (atorvastatin 80 mg or rosuvastatin 40 mg). The five year incidences of MVE and PVE were 38.1% and 44.7%, respectively. It was estimated that if the mean LDL-C of the cohort had been reduced by 1 mmol/L, this could have reduced the absolute risk of MVE and PVE by 6.5% (95% CI 4.4 - 8.7; NNT 15) and 5.3% (95% CI 1.4 - 7.5; NNT 19), respectively. It was estimated that the maximum allowable expense for a cost effective LDL-C lowering programme would be between $1 239 AUD (€768) and $1 582 AUD (€981) per person per annum over a five year period. CONCLUSION: People with a small asymptomatic AAA are at high risk of MVE and PVE. This study provides evidence of the possible benefits and allowable expense for a cost effective intensive LDL-C lowering programme in this population.

Cost-Effectiveness of Using LDL-Direct Versus Lipid-Panel as Part of the Inpatient Stroke Workup.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether utilizing a LDL-direct laboratory test rather than a lipid panel to determine LDL-C as part of the inpatient stroke and TIA workup is more cost-effective to the patient and hospital system. A retrospective analysis was conducted on all patients admitted to UCSD La Jolla and Hillcrest Hospital and discharged with a final diagnosis of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack between 7/2016 and 6/2019. A cost-analysis was extrapolated based on the current cost of each test as provided by the UCSD hospital billing department as of June 2020. Patients started on a statin, who were not on one prior to admission, were also analyzed to highlight the importance of an accurate LDL-C on management of dyslipidemia. RESULTS: A total of 1245 patients were included in the study with 87% representing Ischemic strokes and 13% transient ischemic attacks. Over the three-year period, a total savings of $77,545 would be achieved if LDL-direct were used in place of a lipid-panel, representing an overall cost savings of 33%. Over the same time-frame, 536 (43%) patients were started on a statin that were not previously on one. CONCLUSIONS: Ordering a LDL-direct test should be considered over a lipid panel to evaluate LDL-C as it may prove to be the most cost effective approach to both the patient and Healthcare system.

Longitudinal changes of lipid profile in the Lebanese pediatric population.

BACKGROUND: Few studies looked at the prevalence of dyslipidemia in pediatric Middle-Eastern countries. In addition, worldwide longitudinal changes of lipid profile is not well documented. The purpose of this study is to look at the longitudinal changes of lipid parameters in Lebanese school-age children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 97 subjects (41 girls and 56 boys) aged between 11 and 21 years were included in this study. The subjects were selected among 339 school-age children with a previous abnormal lipid profile who were recruited from 10 schools of varying socio-economic levels (SEL). A fasting lipid profile [total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG) and HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C)] was performed. Non-HDL-cholesterol (Non-HDL-C) was calculated. Weight and height were measured under the same conditions, and BMI percentiles were calculated. A multivariate covariance analysis model (MANCOVA) was used with TG, HDL-C and non-HDL-C as dependent variables with additional post-MANCOVA F tests. RESULTS: The age of the current cohort is 16.5 ± 2.9 years with no significant difference according to gender. The current lipid profile was obtained 3.1 ± 0.7 years following the initial one, with 53.6% of the subjects having it normalized. TC, TG, and non-HDL-C decreased significantly over time in girls, while only TG decreased significantly in boys. No significant changes were observed for HDL-C. Using MANCOVA, a significant time by age interaction was observed (p < 0.0001), while gender, BMI and SEL were found not to be significant. Post-hoc F tests showed that the time by age interaction was driven by TG (p = 0.03) and non-HDL-C (p < 0.001), the larger effect being observed in younger children. CONCLUSION: A high proportion of school-age children normalize their abnormal lipid profile with time. Screening for lipid disorders could be postponed until post puberty age.

A Cost Analysis of Universal versus Targeted Cholesterol Screening in Pediatrics.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the number of children needed to screen to identify a case of childhood dyslipidemia and estimate costs under universal vs targeted screening approaches. STUDY DESIGN: We constructed a decision-analytic model comparing the health system costs of universal vs targeted screening for hyperlipidemia in US children aged 10 years over a 1-year time horizon. Targeted screening was defined by family history: dyslipidemia in a parent and/or early cardiovascular disease in a first-degree relative. Prevalence of any hyperlipidemia (low-density lipoprotein [LDL] ≥130 mg/dL) and severe hyperlipidemia (LDL ≥190 mg/dL or LDL ≥160 mg/dL with family history) were obtained from published estimates. Costs were estimated from the 2016 Maryland Medicaid fee schedule. We performed sensitivity analyses to evaluate the influence of key variables on the incremental cost per case detected. RESULTS: For universal screening, the number needed to screen to identify 1 case was 12 for any hyperlipidemia and 111 for severe hyperlipidemia. For targeted screening, the number needed to screen was 7 for any hyperlipidemia and 49 for severe hyperlipidemia. The incremental cost per case detected for universal compared with targeted screening was $1980 for any hyperlipidemia and $32 170 for severe hyperlipidemia. CONCLUSIONS: Our model suggests that universal cholesterol screening detects hyperlipidemia at a low cost per case, but may not be the most cost-efficient way to identify children with severe hyperlipidemia who are most likely to benefit from treatment.

Predicted impact of lipid lowering therapy on cardiovascular and economic outcomes of Swedish atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease guideline.

BACKGROUND: The effects on cardiovascular disease (CVD) by treatment recommendations on prevention of atherosclerotic CVD remain to be evaluated. The objectives were to assess treatment gap for low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) according to guidelines, potential impact on CVD outcomes, and possible avoided economic costs, in post myocardial infarction (MI) patients, if target LDL-C levels of ≤1.8 mmol/L would be achieved. METHODS: All patients registered in the Swedish Secondary Prevention after Heart Intensive care Admission register, with one-year post-MI follow-up during 2013 were selected. The REACH risk prediction and a calibrated model for recurrent cardiovascular events and death were used to estimate unadjusted risk prediction based on the REACH equation henceforth called base case, and calibrated CVD outcomes based on gender-specific risk factors. The predicted impact of the LDL-C reduction on the risk of CVD was based on the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists´ Collaboration findings. RESULTS: A sample of n = 5904 patients (74% men) with a mean age of 64 years were included. Around 70% did not reach LDL-C target ≤1.8 mmol/L. Over a 10-year period, 820-2262 events were predicted to occur in those who did not reach target corresponding to 20% - 55% risk of CVD events. To achieve LDL-C target, the mean LDL-C had to be reduced by 0.73 mmol/L (29%). If this LDL-C reduction was achieved, 195-544 life years, 132-343 CVD events, and 7.9-20.9 million Swedish crowns (MSEK) of direct costs, and 19.3-51.0 MSEK of total costs would be avoided. CONCLUSION: Lowering of LDL cholesterol to achieve target levels according to guidelines for post-MI patients may lead to fewer cardiovascular events and avoidance of event costs.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY GUIDELINES FOR MANAGEMENT OF DYSLIPIDEMIA AND PREVENTION OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE - EXECUTIVE SUMMARYComplete Appendix to Guidelines available at http://journals.aace.com.

OBJECTIVE: The development of these guidelines is mandated by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) Board of Directors and American College of Endocrinology (ACE) Board of Trustees and adheres with published AACE protocols for the standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). METHODS: Each Recommendation is based on a diligent review of the clinical evidence with transparent incorporation of subjective factors. RESULTS: The Executive Summary of this document contains 87 Recommendations of which 45 are Grade A (51.7%), 18 are Grade B (20.7%), 15 are Grade C (17.2%), and 9 (10.3%) are Grade D. These detailed, evidence-based recommendations allow for nuance-based clinical decision making that addresses multiple aspects of real-world medical care. The evidence base presented in the subsequent Appendix provides relevant supporting information for Executive Summary Recommendations. This update contains 695 citations of which 202 (29.1 %) are evidence level (EL) 1 (strong), 137 (19.7%) are EL 2 (intermediate), 119 (17.1%) are EL 3 (weak), and 237 (34.1%) are EL 4 (no clinical evidence). CONCLUSION: This CPG is a practical tool that endocrinologists, other healthcare professionals, regulatory bodies and health-related organizations can use to reduce the risks and consequences of dyslipidemia. It provides guidance on screening, risk assessment, and treatment recommendations for a range of patients with various lipid disorders. These recommendations emphasize the importance of treating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in some individuals to lower goals than previously recommended and support the measurement of coronary artery calcium scores and inflammatory markers to help stratify risk. Special consideration is given to patients with diabetes, familial hypercholesterolemia, women, and pediatric patients with dyslipidemia. Both clinical and cost-effectiveness data are provided to support treatment decisions. ABBREVIATIONS: A1C = hemoglobin A1C ACE = American College of Endocrinology ACS = acute coronary syndrome AHA = American Heart Association ASCVD = atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ATP = Adult Treatment Panel apo = apolipoprotein BEL = best evidence level CKD = chronic kidney disease CPG = clinical practice guidelines CVA = cerebrovascular accident EL = evidence level FH = familial hypercholesterolemia HDL-C = high-density lipoprotein cholesterol HeFH = heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia HIV = human immunodeficiency virus HoFH = homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia hsCRP = high-sensitivity C-reactive protein LDL-C = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol Lp-PLA2 = lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 MESA = Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis MetS = metabolic syndrome MI = myocardial infarction NCEP = National Cholesterol Education Program PCOS = polycystic ovary syndrome PCSK9 = proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 T1DM = type 1 diabetes mellitus T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus TG = triglycerides VLDL-C = very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

Household income and LDL-C goal attainment in patients with diabetes and dyslipidemia in a Canadian dataset.

PURPOSE: There is evidence of a social disparity pertaining to the epidemiology and burden of illness of diabetes. The purpose of this study was to assess the association between household income strata and therapeutic goal achievement rates for LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) (< 2.5 mmol/L) in Canadian diabetic patients. METHODS: Data (household income, cardiovascular risk factors, drug profile, clinical and laboratory variables) were obtained from a previous cross-sectional study of diabetic patients who filled a prescription for a lipid-lowering drug in selected pharmacies across Canada. Telephone interviews were conducted. Physicians, identified by the participating patients, were requested to complete a short questionnaire for clinical data. Achievement of LDL-C goals according to the Canadian diabetes guidelines were assessed and incorporated into regression models corresponding to household income strata. RESULTS: Seven household income strata were defined in the cohort (from less than 20,000 CDN$, up to 70,000 CDN$ by increments of 10,000 CDN$). LDL-C goals were attained in 34% of patients in the total cohort. There were no significant differences amongst household income strata for LDL-C goal achievement (p = 0.80). There were no significant differences in patient characteristics (age, sex, BMI) and cardiovascular risks according to the household income strata in this cohort, except age more than 65 in the lower income strata. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that household income was not a factor to achieve therapeutic goals for LDL-C for patients with diabetes in this dataset, although goal attainment was less than ideal overall. Future studies should address limitations of this work including small sample size, recruitment bias and lack of data on third party insurance coverage.

Prescription drug coverage and effective coverage of three chronic conditions of high prevalence in Chile: Hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidemia.

BACKGROUND: Access to medicines is a serious problem globally and in Chile. Despite the creation of coverage policies, part of the population with chronic conditions of high prevalence, still does not have access to the medicines it requires and disease control continues to be low. The objective of the study was to estimate the medication use and effective coverage for diabetes, dyslipidemia and hypertension in Chile, analyzing them according to sociodemographic variables and social determinants of health. METHODS: Cross-sectional analytical study with information from the 2016-2017 National Health Survey (sample = 6,233 people aged 15 years or older, expanded = 14,518,969). Descriptive analyses of medication use and effective coverage for hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidemia were carried out, and multivariate logistic regression models were developed to analyze possible associations with variables of interest. RESULTS: 60% of people with hypertension or diabetes use medications and only 27.7% in dyslipidemia. While 54.2% of those with diabetes have their glycemia controlled, in hypertension and dyslipidemia the effective coverage drops to 33.3% and 6.6%, respectively. There are no differences in use by health system, but there are differences in the control of hypertension and diabetes, favoring beneficiaries of the private subsystem. Effective coverage of dyslipidemia and hypertension also increases in those using medications. The drugs coincide with the established protocols, although beneficiaries of the private sector report greater use of innovative drugs. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of Chileans with hypertension, diabetes or dyslipidemia still do not use the required medications and do not control their conditions.

Prescription-based cost analysis of medicines for cardiovascular risk factors at Indian Council of Medical Research-Rational Use of Medicine Centre Hospitals of India.

OBJECTIVES: India has taken several initiatives to provide health care to its population while keeping the related expenditure minimum. Since cardiovascular diseases are the most prevalent chronic conditions, in the present study, we aimed to analyze the difference in prices of medicines prescribed for three cardiovascular risk factors, based on (a) listed and not listed in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) and (b) generic and branded drugs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Outpatient prescriptions for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and dyslipidemia were retrospectively analyzed from 12 tertiary centers. The prices of medicines prescribed were compared based on presence or absence in NLEM India-2015 and prescribing by generic versus brand name. The price was standardized and presented as average price per medicine per year for a given medicine. The results are presented in Indian rupee (INR) and as median (range). RESULTS: Of the 4,736 prescriptions collected, 843 contained oral antidiabetic, antihypertensive, and/or hypolipidemic medicines. The price per medicine per year for NLEM oral antidiabetics was INR 2849 (2593-3104) and for non-NLEM was INR 5343 (2964-14364). It was INR 806 (243-2132) for generic and INR 3809 (1968-14364) for branded antidiabetics. Antihypertensives and hypolipidemics followed the trend. The price of branded non-NLEM medicines was 5-22 times higher compared to generic NLEM which, for a population of 1.37 billion, would translate to a potential saving of 346.8 billion INR for statins. The variability was significant for sulfonylureas, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, diuretics, and statins (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The study highlights an urgent need for intervention to actualize the maximum benefit of government policies and minimize the out-of-pocket expenditure on medicines.

The "cost" of treating to target: cross-sectional analysis of patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes in Australian general practice.

BACKGROUND: To describe the current treatment gap in management of cardiovascular risk factors in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes in general practice as well as the associated financial and therapeutic burden of pharmacological treatment. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of data from the Patient Engagement and Coaching for Health trial. This totalled 473 patients from 59 general practices with participants eligible if they had HbA1c > 7.5%. Main outcome measures included proportions of patients not within target risk factor levels and weighted average mean annual cost for cardiometabolic medications and factors associated with costs. Medication costs were derived from the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule. RESULTS: Average age was 63 (range 27-89). Average HbA1c was 8.1% and average duration of diabetes was 10 years. 35% of patients had at least one micro or macrovascular complication and patients were taking a mean of 4 cardio-metabolic medications. The majority of participants on treatment for cardiovascular risk factors were not achieving clinical targets, with 74% and 75% of patients out of target range for blood pressure and lipids respectively. A significant proportion of those not meeting clinical targets were not on treatment at all. The weighted mean annual cost for cardiometabolic medications was AUD$1384.20 per patient (2006-07). Independent factors associated with cost included age, duration of diabetes, history of acute myocardial infarction, proteinuria, increased waist circumference and depression. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment rates for cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes in our participants are higher than those identified in earlier studies. However, rates of achieving target levels remain low despite the large 'pill burden' and substantial associated fiscal costs to individuals and the community. The complexities of balancing the overall benefits of treatment intensification against potential disadvantages for patients and health care systems in primary care warrants further investigation.

Can the consequences of universal cholesterol screening during childhood prevent cardiovascular disease and thus reduce long-term health care costs?

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Expert Panel in the United States (US) recently published its report, Integrated Guidelines for Cardiovascular Health and Risk Reduction in Children and Adolescents. The Panel's goals were to develop comprehensive, evidence-based strategies for use by general practitioners in the primary and primordial prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). These Guidelines have been endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Many of the recommendations restate existing lifestyle guidance similar to those proposed by the Committee on Nutrition in 2008. However a debate has emerged because for the first time, universal and comprehensive childhood dyslipidemia screening and treatment is now recommended by these new Guidelines. Because of universal screening, dyslipidemia attributed to both lifestyle and genetic factors could potentially be ascertained. The recommendations to screen for serum lipids and glucose have stimulated heated discussions among pediatricians, subspecialists, and policy-makers. This commentary discusses the medical, psychosocial and economic benefits and risks of universal cholesterol screening in children.

[Analysis of cost-effectiveness of simvastatin versus atorvastatin in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events within the Brazilian public healthcare system]. / Análise de custo-efetividade da sinvastatina versus atorvastatina na prevenção secundária de eventos cardiovasculares no Sistema Único de Saúde Brasileiro.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to perform an economic evaluation analyzing the treatment with atorvastatin and simvastatin in comparison to placebo treatment, within the Brazilian Public Healthcare System (SUS) scenario, for patients with high risk of cardiovascular disease; analyzing if the additional cost related to statin treatment is justified by the clinical benefits expected, in terms of cardiovascular event and mortality reduction. METHODS: Cardiovascular event risk and mortality risk were used as outcomes. Statin efficacy at LDL-c and cardiovascular events levels lowering data was obtained from a systematic review of literature. A decision analytic model was developed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing atorvastatin 10mg/day and simvastatin 40 mg/day to placebo treatment in patients with dyslipidemia in Brazil. The target population of this study was a hypothetic cohort of men and women with a mean age of 50 years old and high risk of cardiovascular disease. The model includes only direct costs obtained from Ambulatory and Hospital Information System and Price Database of Brazilian Ministry of Health. The comparative cost-effectiveness analysis itself was done through Excel spreadsheets covering a 5 -years time horizon. RESULTS: The result shows that atorvastatin 10mg/day in comparison to placebo has higher cost with higher effectiveness in the time horizon of 5 years (Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio of R$ 433.065,05 per life year gained). In this scenario atorvastatin is not cost effective in comparison to placebo. The simvastatin 40 mg/day appears to be a strategy with lower cost and higher effectiveness in comparison to placebo, in the time horizon analyzed (5 years). In the multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analysis, simvastatin showed 53% of the results in the quadrant with greater effectiveness and lower cost. CONCLUSIONS: This study is an important tool for public decision makers. The study can be used in the decision process of increasing cardiovascular disease treatment access with budgetary sustainability for Ministry of Health. In comparison to placebo, the results show that sinvastatin is a cost saving strategy while atorvastatin is not cost effective.

Socioeconomic costs of overweight and obesity in Korean adults.

This study was conducted to estimate the socioeconomic costs of overweight and obesity in a sample of Korean adults aged 20 yr and older in 2005. The socioeconomic costs of overweight and obesity include direct costs (inpatient care, outpatient care and medication) and indirect costs (loss of productivity due to premature deaths and inpatient care, time costs, traffic costs and nursing fees). Hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, ischemic heart disease, stroke, colon cancer and osteoarthritis were selected as obesity-related diseases. The population attributable fraction (PAF) of obesity was calculated from national representative data of Korea such as the National Health Insurance Corporation (NHIC) cohort data and the 2005 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) data. Direct costs of overweight and obesity were estimated at approximately U$1,081 million equivalent (men: U$497 million, women: U$584 million) and indirect costs were estimated at approximately U$706 million (men: U$527 million, women: U$178 million). The estimated total socioeconomic costs of overweight and obesity were approximately U$1,787 million (men: U$1,081 million, women: U$706 million). These total costs represented about 0.22% of the gross domestic product (GDP) and 3.7% of the national health care expenditures in 2005. We found the socioeconomic costs of overweight and obesity in Korean adults aged 20 yr and older are substantial. In order to control the socioeconomic burden attributable to overweight and obesity, effective national strategies for prevention and management of obesity should be established and implemented.

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.

Relationship between adherence level to statins, clinical issues and health-care costs in real-life clinical setting.

OBJECTIVE: Statins have been shown to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular disease. We recognize that there is a major gap between the use of statins in actual practice and treatment guidelines for dyslipidemia. Low adherence to statins may have a significant impact on clinical issues and health-care costs. The objective is to evaluate the impact of low adherence to statins on clinical issues and direct health-care costs. METHODS: A cohort of 55,134 patients newly treated with statins was reconstructed from the Régie de l'Assurance Maladie du Québec and Med-Echo databases. Subjects included were aged between 45 and 85, initially free of cardiovascular disease, newly treated with statins between 1999 and 2002, and followed-up for a minimum of 3 years. Adherence to statins was measured in terms of the proportion of days' supply of medication dispensed over a defined period, and categorized as >or=80% or <80%. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) of cardiovascular events between the two adherence groups was estimated using a polytomous logistic analysis. The mean costs of direct health-care services were evaluated. A two-part model was applied for hospitalization costs. RESULTS: The mean high adherence level to statins was around to 96% during follow-up; and this value was at 42% for the low adherence level. The patients with low adherence to statins were more likely to have coronary artery disease (OR 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.13), cerebrovascular disease (OR 1.13; 95% CI 1.03-1.25), and chronic heart failure within 3-year period of follow-up (OR 1.13; 95% CI 1.01-1.26). Low adherence to statins was also associated with an increased risk of hospitalization by 4% (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.01-1.09). Among patients who were hospitalized, low adherence to statins was significantly associated with increase of hospitalization costs by approximately $1060/patient for a 3-year period. CONCLUSION: Low adherence to statins was correlated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, hospitalization rate, and hospitalization costs. An increased level of adherence to statins agents should provide a better health status for individuals and a net economic gain.

Predictors of annual pharmaceutical costs in Australia for community-based individuals with, or at risk of, cardiovascular disease: analysis of Australian data from the REACH registry.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains a leading cause of death across the world and poses a significant economic burden. Research regarding per-person use and cost of cardiovascular pharmaceuticals in Australia, as well as potential predictors of pharmaceutical costs in populations using the 'bottom up' costing approach, is limited. Previous studies have adopted 'top down' costing approaches and have been based largely on hypothetical examples and considered only inpatient settings. OBJECTIVE: To determine the distribution of pharmaceutical costs (from a governmental perspective) related to each cardiovascular risk factor for individuals with, or at high risk of, CVD by analysing data for Australian participants enrolled in the Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) Registry. METHODS: 2873 participants were recruited for the REACH Registry through 273 general (primary care) practices in Australia. Included among data collected at baseline was a cardiovascular medicines review. Average weighted costs per person were estimated using Government-reimbursed prices (2007). Annual costs were stratified by sex, age, disease group and other co-morbidities. A multivariate linear regression model was utilized to reveal the predictors of the pharmaceutical costs. RESULTS: The average annual median cost of cardiovascular pharmaceuticals per person was Australian dollars ($A)1310. Use of lipid-lowering agents, non-aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) antiplatelet agents and thiazolidinediones (glitazones) added significantly to the average annual per-person costs. The multivariate regression model showed that the predictors of annual pharmaceutical costs were dyslipidemia (beta coefficient value [marginal annual cost associated with a condition] $A691; p < 0.001), hypertension ($A346; p < 0.001), vascular disease ($A340; p < 0.001), diabetes mellitus ($A298; p < 0.001), and obesity ($A52; p = 0.03). The same predictors, together with sex, were shown to have an impact on the number of medicines used. CONCLUSIONS: Among community-based Australians with, or at risk of, CVD, independent drivers of annual cardiovascular pharmaceutical costs are dyslipidemia (which accounts for half of per-person costs), followed by hypertension, established CVD, and diabetes. Obesity also independently adds to the cost of cardiovascular pharmaceuticals in community-based Australians with, or at risk of, CVD.

Efficiency and cost-effectiveness of dyslipidemia screening methods among workers in Bangkok.

Dyslipidemia is now a worldwide health problem. Secondary prevention in the form of early detection of dyslipidemia and risk modification via drug and non-drug procedures, particularly among the high-risk group, is thus imperative. The objective of this study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity, cost, and cost-effectiveness of dyslipidemia screening methods which were proposed by the Royal Thai Medical Association (RTMA), the United States National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP), British Hyperlipidemia Association (BHA), and our modified screening instrument (MSI). A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted among 2,000 workers aged > or = 35 years taking annual health examination from a university hospital during July-September, 2008. Sensitivity and specificity of the screening methods were analyzed using the universal serum lipid testing as the gold standard. Their total and unit costs, and cost-effectiveness were then calculated. Overall, the sensitivities for detecting any type of serum lipid abnormalities ranged between 29.9-99.4 %, while the specificities ranged between 0.5-74.1%. The total costs per 1,000 people screened ranged between THB 88,742 - 184,750. No screening method was obviously more cost-effective when using the cost per case detected of the universal blood test as the reference.