A Survey of Availability and Affordability of Polypills for Cardiovascular Disease in Selected Countries.

Background: The recent inclusion of polypills-fixed-dose combinations of antihypertensive medicines and a statin with or without aspirin-in the World Health Organization's Essential Medicines List (EML) reiterates the potential of this approach to improve global treatment coverage for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Although there exists extensive evidence on the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of polypills, there has been no research to date assessing the real-world availability and affordability of polypills globally. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey, based on the WHO/Health Action International methodology, in 13 countries around the world. In the surveyed countries, we first ascertained whether any polypill was authorised for marketing and/or included in EMLs and clinical guidelines. In each country, we collected retail and price data for polypills from at least one public-sector facility and three private pharmacies using convenience sampling. Polypills were considered unaffordable if the lowest-paid worker spent more than a day's wage to purchase a monthly supply. Results: Polypills were approved for marketing in four of the 13 surveyed countries: Spain, India, Mauritius and Argentina. None of these countries included polypills in national guidelines, formularies, or EMLs. In the four countries, no surveyed public pharmacies stocked polypills. In the private sector, we identified seven unique polypill combinations, marketed by eight different companies. Private sector availability was 100% in Argentina and Spain. Most combinations (n = 5) identified were in India. Combinations found in India and Spain were affordable in the local context. A lowest-paid government worker would spend between 0.2 (India) and 2.8 (Mauritius) days' wages to pay the price for one month's supply of the polypills. Polypills were likely to be affordable if they were manufactured in the same country. Conclusion: Low availability and affordability of polypills in the public sector suggest that implementation remains poor globally. Context-specific multi-disciplinary health system research is required to understand factors affecting polypill implementation and to design and evaluate appropriate implementation strategies.

Genetic-Guided Pharmacotherapy for Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic and Critical Review of Economic Evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Genetic-guided pharmacotherapy (PGx) is not recommended in clinical guidelines for coronary artery disease (CAD). We aimed to examine the extent and quality of evidence from economic evaluations of PGx in CAD and to identify variables influential in changing conclusions on cost-effectiveness. METHODS AND RESULTS: From systematic searches across 6 databases, 2 independent reviewers screened, included, and rated the methodological quality of economic evaluations of PGx testing to guide pharmacotherapy for patients with CAD. Of 35 economic evaluations included, most were model-based cost-utility analyses alone, or alongside cost-effectiveness analyses of PGx testing to stratify patients into antiplatelets (25/35), statins (2/35), pain killers (1/35), or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (1/35) to predict CAD risk (8/35) or to determine the coumadin doses (1/35). To stratify patients into antiplatelets (96/151 comparisons with complete findings of PGx versus non-PGx), PGx was more effective and more costly than non-PGx clopidogrel (28/43) but less costly than non-PGx prasugrel (10/15) and less costly and less effective than non-PGx ticagrelor (22/25). To predict CAD risk (51/151 comparisons), PGx using genetic risk scores was more effective and less costly than clinical risk score (13/17) but more costly than no risk score (16/19) or no treatment (9/9). The remaining comparisons were too few to observe any trend. Mortality risk was the most common variable (47/294) changing conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Economic evaluations to date found PGx to stratify patients with CAD into antiplatelets or to predict CAD risk to be cost-effective, but findings varied based on the non-PGx comparators, underscoring the importance of considering local practice in deciding whether to adopt PGx.

Measuring Costs of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention for Patients with Familial Hypercholesterolemia in Administrative Claims Data.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of High, Moderate and Low-Dose Statins in the Prevention of Vascular Events in the Brazilian Public Health System / Efetividade de Estatinas em Dose Alta, Moderada e Baixa na Prevenção de Eventos Vasculares no SUS

Background: Statins have proven efficacy in the reduction of cardiovascular events, but the financial impact of its widespread use can be substantial. Objective: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of three statin dosing schemes in the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS) perspective. Methods: We developed a Markov model to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of low, intermediate and high intensity dose regimens in secondary and four primary scenarios (5%, 10%, 15% and 20% ten-year risk) of prevention of cardiovascular events. Regimens with expected low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction below 30% (e.g. simvastatin 10mg) were considered as low dose; between 30-40%, (atorvastatin 10mg, simvastatin 40mg), intermediate dose; and above 40% (atorvastatin 20-80mg, rosuvastatin 20mg), high-dose statins. Effectiveness data were obtained from a systematic review with 136,000 patients. National data were used to estimate utilities and costs (expressed as International Dollars - Int$). A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold equal to the Brazilian gross domestic product per capita (circa Int$11,770) was applied. Results: Low dose was dominated by extension in the primary prevention scenarios. In the five scenarios, the ICER of intermediate dose was below Int$10,000 per QALY. The ICER of the high versus intermediate dose comparison was above Int$27,000 per QALY in all scenarios. In the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, intermediate dose had a probability above 50% of being cost-effective with ICERs between Int$ 9,000-20,000 per QALY in all scenarios. Conclusions: Considering a reasonable WTP threshold, intermediate dose statin therapy is economically attractive, and should be a priority intervention in prevention of cardiovascular events in Brazil. .

Fundamento: Estatinas tem eficácia comprovada na redução de eventos cardiovasculares, mas o impacto financeiro de seu uso disseminado pode ser substancial. Objetivo: Conduzir análise de custo-efetividade de três esquemas de doses de estatinas na perspectiva do SUS. Métodos: Foi desenvolvido modelo de Markov para avaliar a razão de custo-efetividade incremental (RCEI) de regimes de dose baixa, intermediária e alta, em prevenção secundária e quatro cenários de prevenção primária (risco em 10 anos de 5%, 10%, 15% e 20%). Regimes com redução de LDL abaixo de 30% (ex: sinvastatina 10mg) foram considerados dose baixa; entre 30-40% (atorvastatina 10mg, sinvastatina 40mg), dose intermediária; e acima de 40% (atorvastatina 20-80 mg, rosuvastatina 20 mg), dose alta. Dados de efetividade foram obtidos de revisão sistemática com aproximadamente 136.000 pacientes. Dados nacionais foram usados para estimar utilidades e custos (expressos em dólares internacionais - Int$). Um limiar de disposição a pagar (LDP) igual ao produto interno bruto per capita nacional (aproximadamente Int$11.770) foi utilizado. Resultados: A dose baixa foi dominada por extensão nos cenários de prevenção primária. Nos cinco cenários, a RCEI da dose intermediária ficou abaixo de Int$10.000 por QALY. A RCEI de dose alta ficou acima de Int$27.000 por QALY em todos os cenários. Nas curvas de aceitabilidade de custo-efetividade, dose intermediária teve probabilidade de ser custo-efetiva acima de 50% com RCEIs entre Int$9.000-20.000 por QALY em todos os cenários. Conclusões: Considerando um LDP razoável, uso de estatinas em doses intermediárias é economicamente atrativo, e deveria ser intervenção prioritária na redução de eventos cardiovasculares no Brasil. .

Comentario: problemas y mercadeo de las estatinas / Problems with statins and the marketing of these medications

All statins inhibit hydroxymethylglutaryl Coenzyme A Reductase but each has a different chemical structure that may have individual advantages. Some pharmaceutical companies have minimized side effects and stated that dose has no relation to incidence. To the contrary, dose is related to side effects with all statins. Myopathy occurs in up to 10.5 percent of patients taking a high dose. There is an attempt to sell statins that have lost patent protection over-the-counter. However, evidence supports medical supervision as offering greatest patient safety. Concerns were raised about ezetimibe after the initial ENHANCE (effcacy) and SEAS (cancer risk) study but these concerns appear to have been answered. Fenofbrate can be used with a statin but gemfbrozil is contraindicated. Coenzyme Q-10 possibly helps to mitigate the risk of myopathy with a statin but evidence is not universally accepted. JUPITER represented a valid outcomes study but made a claim that rosuvastatin has special value in risk management because of decreased high sensitivity C-Reactive Protein. This actually occurs with any statin, a decrease also enhanced by ezetimibe. Statins have benefted the lives of our patients but, as with any treatment, the physician needs to look critically at all the problems and claims made.

Eficácia da atorvastatina sem administração diária / Efficacy of atorvastatin when not administered daily

FUNDAMENTO: As estatinas têm larga utilização por reduzirem eventos cardíacos. Indicadas para uso diário, no entanto alguns a utilizam em dias alternados, principalmente visando diminuição de custos. OBJETIVO: Avaliar a eficácia da atorvastatina sem administração diária sobre os níveis de LDL-colesterol (LDL-C) e a redução dos custos. MÉTODOS: Foram avaliados 100 pacientes (P) hipercolesterolêmicos em prevenção primária (PP) e secundária (PS). Após período de dieta de 12 semanas iniciou-se atorvastatina 10 mg por dia. Após seis semanas foi dosado o LDL-C, e se níveis <80 ou <104 mg/dl conforme PS e PP, respectivamente, foi feita subtração de duas tomadas de atorvastatina da semana. Caso LDL-C continuasse <80 ou <104 mg/dl permitiria novo ajuste para três vezes na semana, sendo feita última dosagem após seis semanas. A variação porcentual de custos foi a forma de apreciar a economia. RESULTADOS: Em 47 P, dos 52 desse grupo, observou-se redução de LDL-C de 32 por cento, permanecendo com atorvastatina diária. Quarenta e um ficaram até o final do estudo e tiveram redução da posologia semanal. Em 25 P, a medicação foi administrada três vezes por semana e, em 16, cinco vezes por semana, exibindo redução de LDL-C de 42,4 por cento e 46,1 por cento, respectivamente. Sobre custos, um dos grupos teve despesa mensal de R$ 106,65 reduzido para R$ 74,65, e outro grupo, o gasto de R$ 106,65 foi reduzido a R$ 53,33. CONCLUSÃO: Os resultados sugerem que é possível administrar a atorvastatina de forma não-diária e observou-se redução dos custos entre 30 por cento e 50 por cento.

BACKGROUND: Statins are widely used because they reduce cardiac events. Although they are indicated for daily use, some doctorsgive prescriptions for every other day, mainly with the purpose of reducing costs. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of atorvastatin, when not administered everyday, on LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, and also to evaluate cost reduction. METHODS: A total of 100 patients with hypercholesterolemia in primary (PP) and secondary prevention (SP) were assessed. After a 12-week diet period, atorvastatin was initiated at a dose of 10 mg per day. After six weeks, LDL-C was determined, and if the levels were <80 or <104 mg/dL for SP and PP, respectively, two atorvastatin doses were subtracted per week. If LDL-C remained <80 or <104 mg/dL, a further reduction to three times a week was allowed, and the last determination was performed after six more weeks. The percentage variation in costs was the parameter to evaluate the saving. RESULTS: In 47 out of the 52 patients of this group, a reduction by 32 percent in LDL-C was observed, and daily atorvastatin was maintained. Forty one patients remained throughout the study and had their weekly dosage reduced. In 25 patients the medication was administered three times a week, and in 16, five times a week, with reductions of 42.4 percent and 46.1 percent in LDL-C, respectively. As regards costs, one of the groups had their monthly expense reduced from R$ 106.65 to R$ 74.65, and the other group from R$ 106.65 to R$ 53.33. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that atorvastatin may be administered on a non-daily basis. A cost reduction between 30 percent and 50 percent was also observed.