Lifetime effects and cost-effectiveness of standard and higher-intensity statin therapy across population categories in the UK: a microsimulation modelling study.

Background: Cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality have declined across developed economies and granular up-to-date cost-effectiveness evidence is required for treatments targeting large populations. To assess the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of standard and higher intensity statin therapy in the contemporary UK population 40-70 years old. Methods: A cardiovascular disease microsimulation model, developed using the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration data (117,896 participants; 5 years follow-up), and calibrated in the UK Biobank cohort (501,854 participants; 9 years follow-up), projected risks of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, diabetes, cancer and vascular and nonvascular death for all UK Biobank participants without and with statin treatment. Meta-analyses of trials and cohort studies informed statins' relative effects on cardiovascular events, incident diabetes, myopathy and rhabdomyolysis. UK healthcare perspective was taken (2020/2021 UK£) with costs per 28 tablets of £1.10 for standard (35%-45% LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction) and £1.68 for higher intensity (≥45% LDL-C reduction) generic statin. Findings: Across categories by sex, age, LDL-C, and cardiovascular disease history/10-year cardiovascular risk, lifetime standard statin increased survival by 0.28-1.85 years (0.20-1.09 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)), and higher intensity statin by further 0.06-0.40 years (0.03-0.20 QALYs) per person. Standard statin was cost-effective across all categories with incremental cost per QALY from £280 to £8530, with higher intensity statin cost-effective at higher cardiovascular risks and higher LDL-C levels. Stopping statin early reduced benefits and was not cost-effective. Interpretation: Lifetime low-cost statin therapy is cost-effective across all 40-70 years old in UK. Strengthening and widening statin treatment could cost-effectively improve population health. Funding: UK NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (17/140/02).

Long-term cardiovascular risks and the impact of statin treatment on socioeconomic inequalities: a microsimulation model.

BACKGROUND: UK cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence and mortality have declined in recent decades but socioeconomic inequalities persist. AIM: To present a new CVD model, and project health outcomes and the impact of guideline-recommended statin treatment across quintiles of socioeconomic deprivation in the UK. DESIGN AND SETTING: A lifetime microsimulation model was developed using 117 896 participants in 16 statin trials, 501 854 UK Biobank (UKB) participants, and quality-of-life data from national health surveys. METHOD: A CVD microsimulation model was developed using risk equations for myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularisation, cancer, and vascular and non-vascular death, estimated using trial data. The authors calibrated and further developed this model in the UKB cohort, including further characteristics and a diabetes risk equation, and validated the model in UKB and Whitehall II cohorts. The model was used to predict CVD incidence, life expectancy, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the impact of UK guideline-recommended statin treatment across socioeconomic deprivation quintiles. RESULTS: Age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular events were key CVD risk determinants. Model-predicted event rates corresponded well to observed rates across participant categories. The model projected strong gradients in remaining life expectancy, with 4-5-year (5-8 QALYs) gaps between the least and most socioeconomically deprived quintiles. Guideline-recommended statin treatment was projected to increase QALYs, with larger gains in quintiles of higher deprivation. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated the potential of guideline-recommended statin treatment to reduce socioeconomic inequalities. This CVD model is a novel resource for individualised long-term projections of health outcomes of CVD treatments.

Development of clinically meaningful quality indicators for contemporary lung cancer care, and piloting and evaluation in a retrospective cohort; experiences of the Embedding Research (and Evidence) in Cancer Healthcare (EnRICH) Program.

OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer continues to be the most common cause of cancer-related death and the leading cause of morbidity and burden of disease across Australia. There is an ongoing need to identify and reduce unwarranted clinical variation that may contribute to these poor outcomes for patients with lung cancer. An Australian national strategy acknowledges clinical quality outcome data as a critical component of a continuously improving healthcare system but there is a need to ensure clinical quality indicators adequately measure evidence-based contemporary care, including novel and emerging treatments. This study aimed to develop a suite of lung cancer-specific, evidence-based, clinically acceptable quality indicators to measure quality of care and outcomes, and an associated comparative feedback dashboard to provide performance data to clinicians and hospital administrators. DESIGN: A multistage modified Delphi process was undertaken with a Clinical Advisory Group of multidisciplinary lung cancer specialists, with patient representation, to update and prioritise potential indicators of lung cancer care derived from a targeted review of published literature and reports from national and international lung cancer quality registries. Quality indicators were piloted and evaluated with multidisciplinary teams in a retrospective observational cohort study using clinical audit data from the Embedding Research (and Evidence) in Cancer Healthcare Program, a prospective clinical cohort of over 2000 patients with lung cancer diagnosed from May 2016 to October 2021. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Six tertiary specialist cancer centres in metropolitan and regional New South Wales, Australia. RESULTS: From an initial 37 potential quality indicators, a final set of 10 indicators spanning diagnostic, treatment, quality of life and survival domains was agreed. CONCLUSIONS: These indicators build on and update previously available measures of lung cancer care and outcomes in use by national and international lung cancer clinical quality registries which, to our knowledge, have not been recently updated to reflect the changing lung cancer treatment paradigm.

Transverse Colon Primary Tumor Location as a Biomarker in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of CCTG/AGITG CO.17 and CO.20 Randomized Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Sidedness is prognostic and predictive of anti-EGFR efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Transverse colon has been historically excluded from several analyses of sidedness and the optimal division between left- and right-sided colorectal cancer is unclear. We investigated transverse colon primary tumor location as a biomarker in mCRC. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Pooled analysis of CCTG/AGITG CO.17 and CO.20 trials of cetuximab in chemotherapy-refractory mCRC. Outcomes of patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type (WT) mCRC from CO.17 and KRAS WT mCRC from CO.20 were analyzed according to location. RESULTS: A total of 553 patients were analyzed, 32 (5.8%) with cancers from the transverse, 101 (18.3%) from right, and 420 from (75.9%) left colon. Transverse mCRC failed to reach significant benefit from cetuximab versus best supportive care (BSC) for overall survival [OS; median, 5.9 vs. 2.1 months; HR, 0.63; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.28-1.42; P=0.26] and progression-free survival (PFS; median, 1.8 vs. 1.3 months; HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.26-1.28; P=0.16). Analyzing exclusively patients randomized to cetuximab, right-sided and transverse had comparable outcomes for OS (median, 5.6 vs. 5.9 months; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.50-1.34; P=0.43) and PFS (median, 1.9 vs. 1.8 months; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.49-1.26; P=0.31). Patients with left-sided mCRC had superior outcomes with cetuximab compared with transverse for OS (median, 9.7 vs. 5.9 months; HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.67; P=0.0002) and PFS (median, 3.8 vs. 1.8 months; HR, 0,49; 95% CI, 0.31-0.76; P=0.001). Location was not prognostic in patients treated with BSC alone. CONCLUSIONS: Transverse mCRC has comparable prognostic and predictive features with right-sided mCRC.