Cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of a high-intensity statin compared to a low-intensity statin in the management of patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate, using probabilistic decision-analytic modelling techniques, the cost effectiveness of treating familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) patients with high-intensity statins compared to treatment with low-intensity statins. For the purpose of this economic analysis, and based on their known differences, statins were categorised as high intensity if they produce greater LDL-cholesterol reductions than simvastatin 40 mg (e.g., simvastatin 80 mg and appropriate doses of atorvastatin and rosuvastatin or combination of statins + ezetimibe). METHODS: A lifetime Markov model was developed to estimate the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) of treating a hypothetical cohort of 1000 FH patients aged between 20 and 70 years. Baseline coronary heart disease risks reported in the NICE TA 94 on statins, and age-adjusted risk of cardiovascular disease reported in the FH population, were used to populate the model. A meta-analysis estimate of the reduction in cardiovascular events from using high-intensity compared with low-intensity statins was obtained from published trials. Results were interpreted using a cost-effectiveness threshold of pound20 000/QALY. RESULTS: Fewer cardiovascular events and deaths were predicted to occur in the group treated with higher-intensity statins, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated at pound11 103/QALY. The ICER remained below the pound20 000 threshold for 20-39-year-olds and 40-59-year-olds, but rose above this threshold in individuals aged over 60 years. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that results were most sensitive to variation in treatment effect on mortality and the cost of high-intensity statins. CONCLUSIONS: Modelling demonstrates that high-intensity statins are cost-effective for the treatment of younger FH patients. If, as is likely, the relative price of high-intensity statins fall in the future as they come off patent, then their cost effectiveness will improve further.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prognostic markers in prostate cancer.

This paper demonstrates how economic modelling can be used to derive estimates of the cost-effectiveness of prognostic markers in the management of clinically localised and moderately graded prostate cancer. The model uses a Markov process and is populated using published evidence and local data. The robustness of the results has been tested using sensitivity analysis. Three treatment policies of 'monitoring' (observation), radical prostatectomy, or a selection-based management policy using DNA-ploidy as an experimental marker, have been evaluated. Modelling indicates that a policy of managing these tumours utilising experimental markers has an estimated cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of pound 12 068. Sensitivity analysis shows the results to be relatively sensitive to quality-of-life variables. If novel and experimental markers can achieve specificity in excess of 80%, then a policy of radical surgery for those identified as being at high risk and conservative treatment for the remainder would be both better for patients and cost-effective. The analysis suggests that a radical prostatectomy treatment policy for the moderately graded tumours (Gleason grades -7) modelled in this paper may be inferior to a conservative approach in the absence of reliable prognostic markers, being both more costly and yielding fewer QALYs.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a good buy? A cost comparison with small-incision (mini) cholecystectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To compare inpatient costs for laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis using results of a single blind prospective randomised trial. SETTING: Teaching hospital, UK. SUBJECTS: 200 patients having elective cholecystectomy. INTERVENTIONS: Standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy with conversion to open cholecystectomy if necessary. Small-incision cholecystectomy using high right transverse epigastric incision, enlarged if necessary for safe exposure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Providers inpatient costs. RESULTS: Small-incision cholecystectomy cost Pound Sterling 995 and was 29% less expensive than the laparoscopic procedure which cost Pound Sterling 1397. Costs of equipment and operations themselves accounted for most of the difference. Results also suggest that costs to patients and society from time lost away from work may be lower for mini-cholecystectomy. CONCLUSIONS: The national health service could be spending over Pound Sterling 10m a year by encouraging laparoscopic rather than small-incision operations for cholecystectomy. Commissioners of health care should question whether the benefits of laparoscopic surgery justify the additional costs.