Cost-effectiveness of intensification with SGLT2 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: Using a US payer perspective, this study aimed to compare the lifetime cost-effectiveness of adding sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors vs switching to glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) among patients with type 2 diabetes who were not at glycated hemoglobin A1c target after dual therapy with metformin and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. STUDY DESIGN: The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed with the validated IQVIA Core Diabetes Model. Treatment effects were obtained from randomized clinical trials with economic data based on published literature. METHODS: Risk of treatment-emergent adverse events and complications were simulated using submodels informed by published risk equations adjusted for patient characteristics, physiological parameters, and history of complications. Outcomes included cumulative incidence of micro- and macrovascular complications, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and total costs. Scenario analyses were performed to assess robustness of results to variations in clinical and cost inputs and assumptions. RESULTS: Over a lifetime time horizon, adding an SGLT2 inhibitor dominated the strategy of switching to a GLP-1 RA, improving survival by 0.049 LYs and 0.026 QALYs, and was associated with cost savings of $9511. The majority of the scenario analyses confirmed dominance of the DPP-4 inhibitor + SGLT2 inhibitor pathway vs the GLP-1 RA pathway. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis reinforced the base-case finding of cost savings while gaining QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: Intensification with an SGLT2 inhibitor on top of a DPP-4 inhibitor demonstrated slightly better efficacy and cost savings compared with switching to a GLP-1 RA in patients not at glycemic goal with metformin and a DPP-4 inhibitor.

Budget Impact of Oral Semaglutide Intensification versus Sitagliptin among US Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Uncontrolled with Metformin.

BACKGROUND: Oral semaglutide was approved in 2019 for blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and was the first oral glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA). T2DM is associated with substantial healthcare expenditures in the US, so the cost of a new intervention should be weighed against clinical benefits. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the budget impact of a treatment pathway with oral semaglutide 14 mg daily versus oral sitagliptin 100 mg daily among patients not achieving target glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level despite treatment with metformin. METHODS: This study used the validated IQVIA™ CORE Diabetes Model to simulate the treatment impact of oral semaglutide 14 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg over a 5-year time horizon from a US healthcare sector (payer) perspective. Trial data (PIONEER 3) informed cohort characteristics and treatment effects, and literature sources informed event costs. Population and market share data were from the literature and data on file. The analysis evaluated the estimated budget impact of oral semaglutide 14 mg use for patients currently using sitagliptin 100 mg considering both direct medical and treatment costs to understand the impact on total cost of care, given underlying treatment performance and impact on avoidable events. RESULTS: In a hypothetical plan of 1 million lives, an estimated 1993 patients were treated with sitagliptin 100 mg in the target population. Following these patients over 5 years, the incremental direct medical and treatment costs of a patient using oral semaglutide 14 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg was $US16,562, a 70.7% increase (year 2019 values). A hypothetical payer would spend an additional $US3,300,143 (7.1%) over 5 years for every 10% of market share that oral semaglutide 14 mg takes away from sitagliptin 100 mg. Univariate and scenario analyses with alternate inputs and assumptions demonstrated consistent results. CONCLUSIONS: Use of oral semaglutide 14 mg in patients currently receiving sitagliptin 100 mg substantially increases the budget impact for patients with T2DM whose blood glucose level is not controlled with metformin over a 5-year time horizon for US healthcare payers.

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have many treatment options. Choices depend on factors such as cost, preference, and patient characteristics. Oral semaglutide was recently approved for the treatment of T2DM as the first oral therapy of its class. This study estimated the cost for patients treated with sitagliptin 100 mg, a commonly used T2DM treatment, versus oral semaglutide 14 mg for patients whose disease is not well controlled with metformin. Costs and effects were estimated over 5 years for each treatment strategy using predictive model equations and clinical trial data for the two treatments. These costs were considered for both a hypothetical healthcare plan of 1 million lives and the full US population. A patient treated with oral semaglutide 14 mg would expect to see 70.7% higher costs than a patient treated with sitagliptin 100 mg over 5 years. For every 10% of patients who would switch from sitagliptin 100 mg to oral semaglutide 14 mg, costs would increase by 7.1%. Changing the cost of oral semaglutide 14 mg had the greatest impact on model results. The findings from the analysis were consistent across a range of alternate model inputs. Oral semaglutide 14 mg is more costly than sitagliptin 100 mg over 5 years.

Cost-effectiveness of DPP-4 inhibitor and SGLT2 inhibitor combination therapy for type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: Maintaining glycemic control limits costly health risks in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), but accomplishing this may require individualized strategies. Generic medications (eg, sulfonylureas [SU], insulin) are common in T2D management due to their efficacy and costs; however, relatively new drug classes (eg, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 [DPP-4] inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 [SGLT2] inhibitors) have demonstrated clinical benefits in combination therapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of a strategy involving branded combination therapy with DPP-4 inhibitors and SGLT2 inhibitors (pathway 1) compared with a generic alternative with SU and insulin (pathway 2) on a background of metformin. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis using the validated IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model from the US payer perspective. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis. Lifetime clinical and economic outcomes (discounted 3%/year) were modeled for a T2D cohort failing to achieve glycemic goal on metformin monotherapy. Patient baseline data and treatment effects reflect results of clinical trials. Direct medical cost inputs are from multiple published sources. Scenario analyses on key intervention effects and assumptions tested robustness of results. RESULTS: Pathway 1 had higher direct medical costs compared with pathway 2, yet also increased total quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) by 0.24. Increased costs were partially offset by a reduction in diabetes-related complications and delayed insulin initiation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for pathway 1 is favorable at $64,784/QALY. Scenario analyses showed limited impact; nearly all ICERs were less than $100,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, sequential addition of SGLT2 inhibitors to DPP-4 inhibitors may be considered cost-effective compared with traditional treatment with generic medications for patients who fail to achieve glycemic goal on metformin.

Cost-effectiveness of intensification with sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes on metformin and sitagliptin vs direct intensification with insulin in the United Kingdom.

AIM: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of an intensification strategy with sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (pathway 1) compared with NPH insulin (pathway 2) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the United Kingdom who were not at goal on metformin and sitagliptin. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using the well-established, validated IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model from the payer perspective over a patient's lifetime. Randomized clinical trials informed treatment effect measures, while public or published sources informed economic inputs. Scenario analyses of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), hypoglycaemia rate, body mass index effects, SGLT2 inhibitor cardiovascular protective effects, and population characteristics were conducted to assess the robustness of results. RESULTS: Pathway 1 increased life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with pathway 2 (13.49 vs. 13.37, and 9.40 vs. 9.22, respectively). Additional drug costs in pathway 1 were offset by diabetes-related complication decreases, leading to slightly lower direct medical costs for pathway 1 (£25747 vs £26095). Pathway 1 was therefore cost-neutral (no interpretable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio), while improving clinical outcomes. Scenario analyses consistently showed cost-neutrality or cost-effectiveness of pathway 1. The highest result remained less than £3000/QALY, reflecting older patients (≥65 years) with lower baseline HbA1c (7%). CONCLUSIONS: For UK patients with T2D not at goal on metformin and sitagliptin therapy, treatment intensification with SGLT2 inhibitors prior to NPH insulin is cost-neutral or cost-effective compared with immediate NPH insulin intensification.

Impact of Ezetimibe on the Rate of Cardiovascular-Related Hospitalizations and Associated Costs Among Patients With a Recent Acute Coronary Syndrome: Results From the IMPROVE-IT Trial (Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial).

BACKGROUND: Ezetimibe, when added to simvastatin therapy, reduces cardiovascular events after recent acute coronary syndrome. However, the impact of ezetimibe on cardiovascular-related hospitalizations and associated costs is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used patient-level data from the IMPROVE-IT (Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial) to examine the impact of simvastatin-ezetimibe versus simvastatin-placebo on cardiovascular-related hospitalizations and related costs (excluding drug costs) over 7 years follow-up. Medicare Severity-Diagnosis Related Groups were assigned to all cardiovascular hospitalizations. Hospital costs were estimated using Medicare reimbursement rates for 2013. Associated physician costs were estimated as a percentage of hospital costs. The impact of treatment assignment on hospitalization rates and costs was estimated using Poisson and linear regression, respectively. There was a significantly lower cardiovascular hospitalization rate with ezetimibe compared with placebo (risk ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.99; P=0.031), mainly attributable to fewer hospitalizations for percutaneous coronary intervention, angina, and stroke. Consequently, cardiovascular-related hospitalization costs over 7 years were $453 per patient lower with ezetimibe (95% confidence interval, -$38 to -$869; P=0.030). Although all prespecified subgroups had lower cost with ezetimibe therapy, patients with diabetes mellitus, patients aged ≥75 years, and patients at higher predicted risk for recurrent ischemic events had even greater cost offsets. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome leads to reductions in cardiovascular-related hospitalizations and associated costs, with the greatest cost offsets in high-risk patients. These cost reductions may completely offset the cost of the drug once ezetimibe becomes generic, and may lead to cost savings from the perspective of the healthcare system, if treatment with ezetimibe is targeted to high-risk patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT00202878.

Economic evaluation of ezetimibe treatment in combination with statin therapy in the United States.

AIMS: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of ezetimibe with statin therapy vs statin monotherapy from a US payer perspective, assuming the impending patent expiration of ezetimibe. METHODS: A Markov-like economic model consisting of 28 distinct health states was used. Model population data were obtained from US linked claims and electronic medical records, with inclusion criteria based on diagnostic guidelines. Inputs came from recent clinical trials, meta-analyses, and cost-effectiveness analyses. The base-case scenario was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding ezetimibe 10 mg to statin in patients aged 35-74 years with a history of coronary heart disease (CHD) and/or stroke, and with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels ≥70 mg/dL over a lifetime horizon, assuming a 90% price reduction of ezetimibe after 1 year to take into account the impending patent expiration in the second quarter of 2017. Sub-group analyses included patients with LDL-C levels ≥100 mg/dL and patients with diabetes with LDL-C levels ≥70 mg/dL. RESULTS: The lifetime discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ezetimibe added to statin was $9,149 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for the base-case scenario. For patients with LDL-C levels ≥100 mg/dL, the ICER was $839/QALY; for those with diabetes and LDL-C levels ≥70 mg/dL, it was $560/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the model was sensitive to changes in cost of ezetimibe, rate reduction of non-fatal CHD, and utility weight for non-fatal CHD in the base-case and sub-group analyses. LIMITATIONS: Indirect costs or treatment discontinuation estimation were not included. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with statin monotherapy, ezetimibe with statin therapy was cost-effective for secondary prevention of CHD and stroke and for primary prevention of these conditions in patients whose LDL-C levels are ≥100 mg/dL and in patients with diabetes, taking into account a 90% cost reduction for ezetimibe.

Cost-effectiveness of adding ezetimibe to atorvastatin vs switching to rosuvastatin therapy in Portugal.

BACKGROUND: Statin monotherapy is the mainstay of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) management for high cardiovascular risk patients in Portugal; however, several therapeutic options are available and predicted to have different clinical and economic impacts. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding ezetimibe 10 mg (EZ10) to atorvastatin 10 or 20 mg (A10/20) vs switching to rosuvastatin 10 or 20 mg (R10/20) in Portuguese patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and/or diabetes who are currently above the LDL-C goal. METHODS: A Markov model was used to describe CHD disease progression and the lifetime costs and utilities associated with each disease state were used to estimate the gains in life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), as well as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), of the two treatment regimens. Model inputs, such as age, gender, and prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors of the dyslipidemic Portuguese patients were obtained from the Portuguese cohort of the Dyslipidemia International Study (DYSIS). The efficacy of each treatment regimen, the cost of drugs and of treating CHD events, and the utilities for each disease state were derived from published sources. RESULTS: The estimated lifetime discounted number of QALYs gained by patients treated with A10/20 was 8.70, while in those switching to R10/20 it was 8.81 and in those adding EZ10 it was 8.93. Discounted total health costs were estimated to be €11,131 for A10/20, but €14,511 and €16,571 for R10/20 and A10/20 + EZ10, respectively. The ICER of adding ezetimibe vs switching to rosuvastatin was €16,465/QALY. Based on the Portuguese cost-effectiveness willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000/QALY, adding ezetimibe vs switching to rosuvastatin would be a cost-effective use of resources in Portugal. Sensitivity analyses in patients with differing clinical histories (CHD or diabetes or both) yielded similar values, with no ICER over €30,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of the National Health Service, prescribing ezetimibe to high cardiovascular risk patients being treated with atorvastatin vs switching them to rosuvastatin is projected to be a cost-effective use of resources in Portugal.

Cost-effectiveness of extended-release niacin/laropiprant added to a stable simvastatin dose in secondary prevention patients not at cholesterol goal in Germany.

Coronary heart disease (CHD) remains the leading cause of death in Germany despite statin use to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels; improving lipids beyond LDL-C may further reduce cardiovascular risk. A fixed-dose combination of extended-release niacin (ERN) with laropiprant (LRPT) provides comprehensive lipid management. We adapted a decision-analytic model to evaluate the economic value (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] in terms of costs per life-years gained [LYG]) of ERN/LRPT 2 g over a lifetime in secondary prevention patients in a German setting. Two scenarios were modelled: (1) ERN/LRPT 2 g added to simvastatin 40 mg in patients not at LDL-C goal with simvastatin 40 mg; (2) adding ERN/LRPT 2 g compared with titration to simvastatin 40 mg in patients not at LDL-C goal with simvastatin 20 mg. In both scenarios, adding ERN/LRPT was cost-effective relative to simvastatin monotherapy at a commonly accepted threshold of €30,000 per LYG; ICERs for ERN/LRPT were €13,331 per LYG in scenario 1 and €17,684 per LYG in scenario 2. Subgroup analyses showed that ERN/LRPT was cost-effective in patients with or without diabetes, patients aged ≤ 65 or >65 years and patients with low baseline high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels; ICERs ranged from €10,342 to €15,579 in scenario 1, and from €14,081 to €20,462 in scenario 2. In conclusion, comprehensive lipid management with ERN/LRPT 2 g is cost-effective in secondary prevention patients in Germany who have not achieved LDL-C goal with simvastatin monotherapy.

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

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin (Eze/Simva) compared with doubling the submaximal statin doses, in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) events in the INFORCE study. METHODS: Lifetime treatment costs and benefits were computed using a Markov model. Model inputs included each patient's cardiovascular risk factor profile and actual lipid values at baseline and 12 weeks (endpoint). Cardiovascular event and drug costs were discounted at 3.5%. Age-specific utilities were based on UK literature values and non-coronary heart disease mortality rates on the Office of National Statistics data. In the INFORCE study, 384 patients taking statins at stable doses for ≥6 weeks before hospital admission were stratified by statin dose/potency (low, medium, and high) and then randomized to doubling the statin dose or switching to Eze/Simva 10/40mg for 12 weeks. RESULTS: The Eze/Simva group (n=195) had a higher mean baseline total cholesterol than the double-statin group (n=189). Analyses were adjusted for baseline characteristics. In the INFORCE study, Eze/Simva reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by ∼30% (vs. 4% with doubling statin doses) and significantly enhanced LDL-C goal attainment. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, Eze/Simva conferred 0.218 incremental discounted quality-adjusted life year (QALY) at a discounted incremental cost of £2524, for an ICER of £11,571/QALY (95% confidence interval=£8181-£18,600/QALY). The ICER was £13,552/QALY, £11,930/QALY, and £10,148/QALY in the low-, medium-, and high-potency strata, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to Eze/Simva 10/40 mg is projected to be a cost-effective treatment (vs. double-statin) in UK patients with ACS.

Population-based health-economic evaluation of the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in Finland.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of generic atorvastatin 20 mg (A20), branded rosuvastatin 10 mg (R10), generic simvastatin 40 mg (S40) and the combination of generic S40 + branded ezetimibe 10 mg (S40 + EZ10) for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) in Finnish patients not meeting the target goal of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) with S40. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A probabilistic Markov model was employed to evaluate the costs and health outcomes of the different therapies based on the cardiovascular events avoided. The model included Framingham risk equations, Finnish population characteristics, event rates, quality of life estimates, resource use and unit costs. The LDL-C lowering efficacies were gathered from a systematic literature review, based on a search of Medline carried out in June 2008 (no time limit). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and incremental cost per life year gained (LYG). RESULTS: The efficacy (LDL-C decrease) gained from switching S40 to S40 + EZ10 was consistent in the literature review, whereas the LDL-C decrease gained from switching S40 to A20/R10 was uncertain. The incremental cost per QALY gained from switching generic S40 was lowest for S40 + EZ10 (22,841 euros [24,017 euros] and 26,595 euros [46,686 euros] for diabetic and non-diabetic men [women], respectively). The respective incremental cost per QALY gained for S40 + EZ10 vs. A20 were 19,738 euros (21,405 euros) and 23,596 euros (40,087 euros). A20 dominated R10. Based on the cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier with a willingness-to-pay value of 30,000 euros per QALY gained, the probability of cost-effectiveness for switching generic S40 to S40 + EZ10 was 100% for men and diabetic women. Sensitivity analyses showed that results were robust. CONCLUSIONS: In the Finnish secondary prevention population that is not at goal on S40, switching generic S40 to S40 + EZ10 is more cost-effective than switching S40 to generic A20 or R10.

[Cost effectiveness in the Danish health care of ezetemibe co-administration compared to simvastatin]. / Omkostningseffektivitet i det danske sundhedsvaesen ved ezetimibe-koadministration med simvastatin.

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.

Health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of aprepitant in outpatients receiving antiemetic prophylaxis for highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a major adverse effect of cancer therapy. We aimed to determine outcomes associated with use of aprepitant in outpatients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Germany from a patient's and payer's perspective. METHODS: A decision-analytic model compared an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone) to a control regimen (ondansetron/dexamethasone) over a five days period. Clinical results and resource utilisation observed in aprepitant phase III clinical trials were assigned German unit cost data. RESULTS: Complete response over one chemotherapy cycle was observed in 68% of patients in the aprepitant group (N=514) compared to 48% of patients in the control group (N=518). Patients were estimated to have gained an equivalent of 15 additional hours of perfect health per cycle (0.63 quality-adjusted life days) with aprepitant-based regimen compared to control regimen. Cost per quality-adjusted life year gained with aprepitant was estimated at euro28,891. CONCLUSIONS: Aprepitant substantially improved CINV-related health outcomes in patients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Incremental benefits materialised in a cost-effective fashion.

Lipid-modifying therapy and attainment of cholesterol goals in Europe: the Return on Expenditure Achieved for Lipid Therapy (REALITY) study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have been conducted in actual clinical practice settings to evaluate the ways in which dyslipidemia is managed using lipid-modifying therapies. OBJECTIVE: To determine lipid-modifying therapy practices and their effects on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and/or total cholesterol (TC) goal attainment in Europeans based on prevailing guidelines at the time of therapy in each country. METHODS: Retrospective cohort analysis involving 58,223 patients initiated on lipid-modifying therapies in 10 European countries, with a median patient follow-up on lipid-modifying therapy of 15.3 months. Data on prescriptions of lipid-modifying therapies, laboratory data including LDL-C and TC, achievement of cholesterol goals for LDL-C and/or TC, and hospitalizations were obtained from healthcare administrative databases and/or patient chart reviews. RESULTS: Across Europe, statin monotherapy was the initial lipid-modifying treatment in 51,786 (89.3%) of 58,009 patients with available data. In addition, 38,853 (89.5%) of 43,410 patients with available follow-up statin potency data were initiated on statin regimens of medium or lower equipotency. Low-equipotency regimens include atorvastatin 5 mg, simvastatin 10 mg, and pravastatin 20 mg, whereas medium-equipotency regimens include atorvastatin 10 mg, simvastatin 20 mg, and pravastatin 40 mg. Regimens were adjusted to higher equipotency via either up-titration or switches to combination regimens in 16.2% of patients. On average, 40.5% of patients across Europe who were not initially at guideline recommended cholesterol goals (either LDL-C or TC) and had follow-up data attained recommended cholesterol levels, including <30% of patients in Spain, Italy, or Hungary. In many countries, the likelihood of goal attainment was inversely associated with baseline cardiovascular risk and/or LDL-C levels. CONCLUSIONS: Lipid management strategies in Europe during the study period were dominated by statin monotherapy. Even after prolonged follow-up on lipid-modifying therapy, approximately 60% of Europeans studied did not achieve guideline recommended cholesterol goals. Future emphasis must be placed on subsequent lipid panel monitoring, as well as the use of more efficacious, well-tolerated lipid-modifying therapies such as dual cholesterol inhibitors to enable more European patients to attain their recommended cholesterol goals.

The burden of appendicitis-related hospitalizations in the United States in 1997.

BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis is among the most frequent causes of surgical abdominal disease worldwide. METHODS: Data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample of the Healthcare Utilization Project were used to estimate the prevalence and disease burden of appendicitis-related hospitalizations in the United States in 1997. The data are a representative sample of discharge records from community hospitals drawn from 22 states in the United States. RESULTS: In the United States in 1997, there were an estimated 252,682 (95% CI: 242,957-262,407) appendicitis-related hospitalizations. The mean length of stay and total charges for appendicitis-related hospitalizations were four days (95% CI: 3.4-4.6) and $11,645 (95% CI: $11,299-$11,992) per hospitalization, respectively. Appendicitis-related hospitalizations associated with post-operative infection, peritoneal abscess, or peritonitis had longer average lengths of stay and higher average costs when compared to hospitalizations associated with local appendicitis without post-operative infection. Appendicitis cases among very young and older patients were more likely to be associated with peritoneal abscess, peritonitis, or post-operative infection. CONCLUSIONS: In 1997, appendicitis-related hospitalizations accounted for 0.6% of all hospitalizations in the United States, resulting in approximately one million hospital days and $3 billion in hospital charges. Between 1984 and 1997, the rate of appendicitis hospitalizations in the U. S. population declined slightly, whereas the total number of hospital days remained unchanged.

Cost-effectiveness of ezetimibe coadministration in statin-treated patients not at cholesterol goal: application to Germany, Spain and Norway.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing use of statins, many hypercholesterolaemic patients fail to reach their lipid goal and remain at elevated risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Alternative treatment strategies, such as ezetimibe coadministration and statin titration, can help patients achieve greater lipid control, and thereby lower their CHD risk. But is it cost effective to more aggressively lower cholesterol levels across a broad range of current statin users? METHODS: Using a decision-analytic model based on epidemiological and clinical trials data, we project the lifetime benefit and cost of alternative lipid-lowering treatment strategies for CHD and non-CHD diabetic patients in Germany, Spain and Norway. RESULTS: It is projected that from 40% to 76% of these patients who have failed to reach their lipid goal with their current statin treatment will be able to reach their goal with ezetimibe coadministration; this represents a gain of up to an additional absolute 14% who will be able to reach their goal compared with a 'titrate to goal' strategy where patients are titrated in order to reach their lipid goal (up to the maximum approved dose). For CHD patients, the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ezetimibe coadministration is under Euro 18 000 per life-year gained (Euro/LYG) and 26 000 Euro/LYG compared with strategies based on the observed titration rates and the aggressive 'titrate to goal' strategy, respectively; for non-CHD diabetic patients, these ratios are under 26 000 Euro/LYG and 48 000 Euro/LYG for ezetimibe coadministration compared with the two titration strategies. CONCLUSION: Compared with statin titration, ezetimibe coadministration is projected to be cost effective in the populations and countries studied.