Exploring the Evolution of Statin Pricing in Australia: Observations of Price Disclosure Effects on Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Expenditure.

OBJECTIVES: The high cardiovascular disease burden globally and in Australia necessitates attention on statin expenditure, the primary pharmacological intervention for cardiovascular disease risk factors. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) subsidies approved statins for Australians. Managing PBS government expenditure occurs through price control strategies of statutory price decreases upon first generic entry and price disclosure. This study investigates the impact price control measures had on statin price evolution and government expenditure between 2010 and 2022. METHODS: Prescription and pricing data were obtained from Services Australia Medicare Statistics, and price reduction strategies from the PBS. Summary statistics compared and described statin price, prescription, number of brands, market share, and government expenditure to atorvastatin, fluvastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin price control timelines. RESULTS: Statin prices exposed to price control measures decreased irrespective of dosage and correlated with reductions in government expenditure, with a comparison of 2010 and 2022 showing annual statin expenditure declined by AU$833.5 million (83.25%) whereas prescriptions reduced by 3.0 million (15.7%). Effects of price disclosure on atorvastatin and rosuvastatin market share suggest industry-prompted price reductions may arise from market share loss, whereas reasons external to pricing prompted rosuvastatin to gain market share. CONCLUSIONS: Limited publications on contemporary effects of statin price control measures exist. This investigation found these measures reduced government expenditure for statins by AU$949.1 million, with the price reduction correlating with price control measures. In addition to affirming price control mechanisms remain effective in contemporary times, this investigation provides data for key insights into the Australian statin industry.

Cost-effectiveness of Contemporary Statin Use Guidelines With or Without Coronary Artery Calcium Assessment in African American Individuals.

Importance: Clinical and economic consequences of statin treatment guidelines supplemented by targeted coronary artery calcium (CAC) assessment have not been evaluated in African American individuals, who are at increased risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and less likely than non-African American individuals to receive statin therapy. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline without a recommendation for CAC assessment vs the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline recommendation for use of a non-0 CAC score measured on one occasion to target generic-formulation, moderate-intensity statin treatment in African American individuals at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: A microsimulation model was designed to estimate life expectancy, quality of life, costs, and health outcomes over a lifetime horizon. African American-specific data from 472 participants in the Jackson Heart Study (JHS) at intermediate risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and other US population-specific data on individuals from published sources were used. Data analysis was conducted from November 11, 2018, to November 1, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), discounted at 3% annually. Results: In a model-based economic evaluation informed in part by follow-up data, the analysis was focused on 472 individuals in the JHS at intermediate risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; mean (SD) age was 63 (6.7) years. The sample included 243 women (51.5%) and 229 men (48.5%). Of these, 178 of 304 participants (58.6%) who underwent CAC assessment had a non-0 CAC score. In the base-case scenario, implementation of 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines without CAC assessment provided a greater quality-adjusted life expectancy (0.0027 QALY) at a higher cost ($428.97) compared with the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline strategy with CAC assessment, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $158 325/QALY, which is considered to represent low-value care by the ACC/AHA definition. The 2018 ACC/AHA guideline strategy with CAC assessment provided greater quality-adjusted life expectancy at a lower cost compared with the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines without CAC assessment when there was a strong patient preference to avoid use of daily medication therapy. In probability sensitivity analyses, the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline strategy with CAC assessment was cost-effective compared with the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines without CAC assessment in 76% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay value of $100 000/QALY when there was a preference to lose 2 weeks of perfect health to avoid 1 decade of daily therapy. Conclusions and Relevance: A CAC assessment-guided strategy for statin therapy appears to be cost-effective compared with initiating statin therapy in all African American individuals at intermediate risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and may provide greater quality-adjusted life expectancy at a lower cost than a non-CAC assessment-guided strategy when there is a strong patient preference to avoid the need for daily medication. Coronary artery calcium testing may play a role in shared decision-making regarding statin use.

Economic Evaluation of the 2016 Chinese Guideline and Alternative Risk Thresholds of Initiating Statin Therapy for the Management of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.

OBJECTIVE: The 2016 Chinese guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia recommended mixed rules that centered around a 10% 10-year risk threshold to initiate statins for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The present study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the guideline statin-initiation strategy and alternative strategies. METHODS: A decision analytic model using discrete event simulation with event probabilities based on a validated ASCVD risk prediction tool for Chinese was constructed. Risk factor inputs were from the dataset of a nationally representative survey of middle-aged and elderly Chinese. Data of statin treatment effectiveness were from a published meta-analysis. Other key input data were identified from the literature or relevant databases. The strategies we evaluated were the guideline strategy, a 15% 10-year risk threshold strategy and a 20% 10-year risk threshold strategy. After excluding any extended dominance strategies, the incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of each strategy was calculated. RESULTS: The 20% 10-year risk threshold strategy was an extended dominance option. The incremental costs per QALY gained from the 15% 10-year risk threshold strategy compared with no treatment and the guideline strategy compared with the 15% 10-year risk threshold strategy were CN¥69,309 and CN¥154,944, respectively. The results were robust in most sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The guideline strategy and the 15% 10-year risk threshold strategy are optimal when using the three times and the two times the gross domestic product per capita willingness-to-pay standards, respectively.

An alternative approach identified optimal risk thresholds for treatment indication: an illustration in coronary heart disease.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment thresholds based on risk predictions can be optimized by considering various health (economic) outcomes and performing marginal analyses, but this is rarely performed. We demonstrate a general approach to identify treatment thresholds optimizing individual health (economic) outcomes, illustrated for statin treatment based on 10-year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk predicted by the Framingham risk score. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Creating a health economic model for a risk-based prevention strategy, risk thresholds can be evaluated on several outcomes of interest. Selecting an appropriate threshold range and decrement size for the thresholds and adapting the health economic model accordingly, outcomes can be calculated for each risk threshold. A stepwise, or marginal, comparison of clinical as well as health economic outcomes, that is, comparing outcomes using a specific threshold to outcomes of the former threshold while gradually lowering the threshold, then takes into account the balance between additional numbers of individuals treated and their outcomes (additional health effects and costs). In our illustration, using a Markov model for CHD, we evaluated risk thresholds by gradually lowering thresholds from 20% to 0%. RESULTS: This approach can be applied to identify optimal risk thresholds on any outcome, such as to limit complications, maximize health outcomes, or optimize cost-effectiveness. In our illustration, keeping the population-level fraction of statin-induced complications <10% resulted in thresholds of T = 6% (men) and T = 2% (women). Lowering the threshold and comparing quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) after each 1% decrease, QALYs were gained down to T = 1% (men) and T = 0% (women). Also accounting for costs, net health benefits were favorable down to T = 3% (men) and T = 6% (women). CONCLUSION: Using a stepwise risk-based approach to threshold optimization allows for preventive strategies that optimize outcomes. Presenting this comprehensive overview of outcomes will better inform decision makers when defining a treatment threshold.

Cost-Effectiveness of Simvastatin Plus Ezetimibe for Cardiovascular Prevention in Patients With a History of Acute Coronary Syndrome: Analysis of Results of the IMPROVE-IT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Simvastatin plus ezetimibe reduced the risk of cardiovascular events in the IMProved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International (IMPROVE-IT) study. The aim of this study is to investigate the cost-effectiveness of adding ezetimibe to simvastatin treatment for patients with ACS based on the recently completed IMPROVE-IT trial. METHODS: We constructed a Markov state-transition model to evaluate the costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) associated with co-therapy compared with simvastatin alone from a health care perspective. We ran separate base-case analyses assuming a trial-length and longer term follow-up. One-way sensitivity analyses were used to explore uncertainty in model parameters. RESULTS: In the trial-length model, the ICERs compared with simvastatin alone were $114,400 per QALY for the combination therapy. In 5- and 10-year time horizons, the ICERs remained above the cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000 per QALY. In the lifetime horizon model, The ICER was $45,046 per QALY for combination treatment compared with simvastatin alone. The combination therapy is cost-effective at an 80% decrease in the current branded simvastatin and ezetimibe cost. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested simvastatin and ezetimibe co-therapy would be a cost-effective alternative to simvastatin monotherapy 60.7% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: In our trial-length, 5-year, and 10-year models, the co-therapy was not a cost-effective alternative; however, as follow-up was extended to lifetime, the co-therapy became a cost-effective treatment compared with the simvastatin monotherapy in patients with histories of ACS.

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. .

Cost-effectiveness of high, moderate and low-dose statins in the prevention of vascular events in the Brazilian public health system.

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 40 mg), intermediate dose; and above 40% (atorvastatin 20-80 mg, 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.

Services provided by community pharmacies in Wayne County, Michigan: a comparison by ZIP code characteristics.

OBJECTIVE: To document the availability of selected pharmacy services and out-of-pocket cost of medication throughout a diverse county in Michigan and to assess possible associations between availability of services and price of medication and characteristics of residents of the ZIP codes in which the pharmacies were located. DESIGN: Cross-sectional telephone survey of pharmacies coupled with ZIP code-level census data. SETTING: 503 pharmacies throughout the 63 ZIP codes of Wayne County, MI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The out-of-pocket cost for a 30 days' supply of levothyroxine 50 mcg and brand-name atorvastatin (Lipitor-Pfizer) 20 mg, availability of discount generic drug programs, home delivery of medications, hours of pharmacy operation, and availability of pharmacy-based immunization services. Census data aggregated at the ZIP code level included race, annual household income, age, and number of residents per pharmacy. RESULTS: The overall results per ZIP code showed that the average cost for levothyroxine was $10.01 ± $2.29 and $140.45 + $14.70 for Lipitor. Per ZIP code, the mean (± SD) percentages of pharmacies offering discount generic drug programs was 66.9% ± 15.0%; home delivery of medications was 44.5% ± 22.7%; and immunization for influenza was 46.7% ± 24.3% of pharmacies. The mean (± SD) hours of operation per pharmacy per ZIP code was 67.0 ± 25.2. ZIP codes with higher household income as well as higher percentage of residents being white had lower levothyroxine price, greater percentage of pharmacies offering discount generic drug programs, more hours of operation per week, and more pharmacy-based immunization services. The cost of Lipitor was not associated with any ZIP code characteristic. CONCLUSION: Disparities in the cost of generic levothyroxine, the availability of services such as discount generic drug programs, hours of operation, and pharmacy-based immunization services are evident based on race and household income within this diverse metropolitan county.

Comparison of an effect-model-law-based method versus traditional clinical practice guidelines for optimal treatment decision-making: application to statin treatment in the French population.

Healthcare authorities make difficult decisions about how to spend limited budgets for interventions that guarantee the best cost-efficacy ratio. We propose a novel approach for treatment decision-making, OMES-in French: Objectif thérapeutique Modèle Effet Seuil (in English: Therapeutic Objective-Threshold-Effect Model; TOTEM). This approach takes into consideration results from clinical trials, adjusted for the patients' characteristics in treatment decision-making. We compared OMES with the French clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of dyslipidemia with statin in a computer-generated realistic virtual population, representing the adult French population, in terms of the number of all-cause deaths avoided (number of avoided events: NAEs) under treatment and the individual absolute benefit. The total budget was fixed at the annual amount reimbursed by the French social security for statins. With the CPGs, the NAEs was 292 for an annual cost of 122.54 M€ compared with 443 with OMES. For a fixed NAEs, OMES reduced costs by 50% (60.53 M€ yr(-1)). The results demonstrate that OMES is at least as good as, and even better than, the standard CPGs when applied to the same population. Hence the OMES approach is a practical, useful alternative which will help to overcome the limitations of treatment decision-making based uniquely on CPGs.

Clinical- and cost-effectiveness of LDL particle-guided statin therapy: a simulation study.

We used the Archimedes Model, a mathematical simulation model (Model) to estimate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of using LDL particle concentration (LDL-P) as an adjunct or alternative to LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) to guide statin therapy. LDL-P by NMR has been shown to be a better measure of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk than LDL-C, and may therefore be a better gauge of the need for and response to statin treatment. Using the Model, we conducted a virtual clinical trial comparing the use of LDL-C alone, LDL-P alone, and LDL-C and LDL-P together to guide treatment in the general adult population, and in high-risk, dyslipidemic subpopulations. In the general population, the 5-year major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) relative risk reduction (RRR) of LDL-P alone compared to the control arm (LDL-C alone) was 5.0% (95% CI, 4.7-5.3; p < .0001); using both LDL-C and LDL-P (dual markers) led to 3.0% RRR compared to the control arm (95% CI, 2.8-3.3; p < .0001). For individuals with diabetes, the RRR was 7.3% (95% CI, 6.4-8.2; p < .0001) for LDL-P alone and 6.9% for dual markers (95% CI, 6.1-7.8; both, p < .0001). In the general population, the costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) associated with the use of LDL-P alone were $76,052 at 5 years and $8913 at 20 years and $142,825 at 5 years and $25,505 at 20 years with the use of both markers. In high-risk subpopulations, the use of LDL-P alone was cost-saving at 5 years; whereas the cost per QALY for the use of both markers was $14,250 at 5 years and $859 at 20 years for high-risk dyslipidemics, $19,192 at 5 years and $649 at 20 years for diabetics, and $9030 at 5 years and $7268 at 20 years for patients with prior CHD. In conclusion, the model estimates that using LDL-P to guide statin therapy may reduce the risk of CVD events to a greater extent than does the use of LDL-C alone and maybe cost-effective or cost-saving for high-risk patients.

Factors associated with 2-year persistence in fully non reimbursed lipid-lowering treatments.

OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the main factors associated with long-term persistence in fully paid lipid-lowering treatment. METHODS: We selected 628 moderately hypercholesterolemic subjects (M: 307; F: 311, mean age 59 ± 9 years old), to whom we firstly prescribed a statin (N. 397) or different kinds of lipid-lowering nutraceuticals (N. 231). Then, depending on their will, patients took brand statin (N. 194) or generic statins (N. 203). RESULTS: The main determinants of long-term persistence in therapy are female sex (OR 1.21, 95%CI 1.08-1.42), family history of early cardiovascular disease (OR 1.31, 95%CI 1.13-1.49), baseline LDL-C (OR 1.19, 95%CI 1.02-1.33) and treatment with nutraceuticals versus statins (OR 1.29, 95%CI 1.14-1.38). Persistence appears not to be influenced by patient's age, smoking habit, adverse events during treatment, and estimated cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSION: Among self-paying patients with mild hyperlipidemia, medication persistence is highest among those taking nutraceuticals, followed by brand statins, followed by generic statins.

Effective policy initiatives to constrain lipid-lowering drug expenditure growth in South Korea.

BACKGROUND: The rapid growth of prescription drug expenditures is a major problem in South Korea. Accordingly, the South Korean government introduced a positive listing system in 2006. They also adopted various price reduction policies. Nevertheless, the total expenditure for lipid-lowering drugs have steadily increased throughout South Korea. The present study explores the factors that have influenced the increased expenditures of lipid-lowering drugs with a particular focus on the effects of statins in this process. METHODS: This paper investigates the National Health Insurance claims data for prescribed lipid-lowering drugs collected between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2009. We specifically focused on statins and assessed the yearly variation of statin expenditure by calculating the increased rate of paired pharmaceutical expenditures over a 2 year period. Our study classified statins into three categories: new entrants, core medicines and exiting medicines. For core medicines, we further examined influencing factors such as price, amount of drugs consumed by volume, and prescription changes (substitutes for other drug). RESULTS: Statin expenditure showed an average annual increase of 25.7% between 2005 and 2009. Among the different statins, the expenditure of atorvastatin showed a 36.6% annual increase rate, which was the most dramatic among all statins. Also we divided expenditure for core medicines by the price factor, volume factor, and prescription change. The result showed that annual weighted average prices of individual drug decreased each year, which clearly showed that price influenced statin expenditure in a negative direction. The use of generic drugs containing the same active ingredient as name-brand drugs increased and negatively affected statin expenditure (Generic Mix effect). However, the use of relatively expensive ingredients within statin increase, Ingredient Mix effect contributed to increased statin expenditure (Ingredient Mix effect). In particular, the volume effect was found to be critical for increasing statin expenditure as the amount of statin consumed increased steadily throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: The recent rapid increase in statin expenditure can largely be attributed to an increase in consumption volume. In order to check drug expenditures effectively in our current situation, in which chronic diseases remain steadily on the rise, it is necessary to not only have supply-side initiatives such as price reduction, but also demand-side initiatives that could control drug consumption volume, for example: educational programs for rational prescription, generic drug promotional policies, and policies providing prescription targets.

Cost effectiveness of targeted high-dose atorvastatin therapy following genotype testing in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Results from the PROVE IT trial suggest that patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated with atorvastatin 80 mg/day (A80) have significantly lower rates of cardiovascular events compared with patients treated with pravastatin 40 mg/day (P40). In a genetic post hoc substudy of the PROVE IT trial, the rate of event reduction was greater in carriers of the Trp719Arg variant in kinesin family member 6 protein (KIF6) than in noncarriers. We assessed the cost effectiveness of testing for the KIF6 variant followed by targeted statin therapy (KIF6 Testing) versus not testing patients (No Test) and treating them with P40 or A80 in the USA from a payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed in which 2-year event rates from PROVE IT were extrapolated over a lifetime horizon. Costs and utilities were derived from published literature. All costs were in 2010 US dollars except the cost of A80, which was in 2012 US dollars because the generic formulation was available in 2012. Expected costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated for each strategy over a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: Lifetime costs were US$31,700; US$37,100 and US$41,300 for No Test P40, KIF6 Testing and No Test A80 strategies, respectively. The No Test A80 strategy was associated with more QALYs (9.71) than the KIF6 Testing (9.69) and No Test P40 (9.57) strategies. No Test A80 had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$232,100 per QALY gained compared with KIF6 Testing. KIF6 Testing had an ICER of US$45,300 per QALY compared with No Test P40. CONCLUSIONS: Testing ACS patients for KIF6 carrier status may be a cost-effective strategy at commonly accepted thresholds. Treating all patients with A80 is more expensive than treating patients on the basis of KIF6 results, but the modest gain in QALYs is achieved at a cost/QALY that is generally considered unacceptable compared with the KIF6 Testing strategy. Compared with treating all patients with P40, the KIF6 Testing strategy had an ICER below US$50,000 per QALY. The conclusions from this study are sensitive to the price of generic A80 and the effect on adherence of knowing KIF6 carrier status. The results were based on a post hoc substudy of the PROVE IT trial, which was not designed to test the effectiveness of KIF6 testing.

Comparison of coronary calcium screening versus broad statin therapy for patients at intermediate cardiovascular risk.

Net reclassification has become widely accepted as a method to demonstrate whether new diagnostic technologies add significantly to the discrimination of risk. However, more accurate categorization of risk does not necessarily result in a better clinical outcome. This study examined whether coronary artery calcium, a technology that improves net reclassification in patients at intermediate risk for cardiovascular events, is superior to a strategy that calls for broader intervention with statin therapy in these patients. To do so, the clinical impact and costs of 2 intervention regimens on outcome in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) were calculated based on the known efficacy of statins. Intervention 1 involved treatment of all subjects at conventional intermediate risk with moderate-dose stain, whereas intervention 2 involved moderate- and high-dose statin therapy, respectively, of those remaining at intermediate risk and those reassigned to high risk after reclassification by coronary artery calcium. The 2 strategies would decrease clinical events by 23% and would produce net savings. However, these would be greater with the broad statin prevention strategy than with the coronary calcium reclassification strategy ($732,152 vs $288,336, respectively). In conclusion, even in the short term, the broad statin prevention strategy would be at least as effective in decreasing clinical events but with greater net savings than a prevention strategy using coronary calcium screening.

Prescribing high-dose lipid-lowering therapy early to avoid subsequent cardiovascular events: is this a cost-effective strategy?

BACKGROUND: While evidence shows high-dose statins reduce cardiovascular events compared with moderate doses in individuals with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), many primary care trusts (PCT) advocate the use of generic simvastatin 40 mg/day for these patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from 28 RCTs were synthesized using a mixed treatment comparison model. A Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatments taking into account adherence and the likely reduction in cost for atorvastatin when the patent expires. There is a clear dose-response: rosuvastatin 40 mg/day produces the greatest reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (56%) followed by atorvastatin 80 mg/day (52%), and simvastatin 40 mg/day (37%). Using a threshold of £20,000 per QALY, if adherence levels in general practice are similar to those observed in RCTs, all three higher dose statins would be considered cost-effective compared to simvastatin 40 mg/day. Using the net benefits of the treatments, rosuvastatin 40 mg/day is estimated to be the most cost-effective alternative. If the cost of atorvastatin reduces in line with that observed for simvastatin, atorvastatin 80 mg/day is estimated to be the most cost-effective alternative. CONCLUSION: Our analyses show that current PCT policies intended to minimize primary care drug acquisition costs result in suboptimal care.

[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.

Impact of restricted reimbursement on the use of statins in Finland: a register-based study.

OBJECTIVES: New and expensive medicines are a driving force behind growth in medicine costs, and policies promoting use of less expensive products have been widely introduced. This study investigated the short-term consequences of the restricted reimbursement of expensive statins (atorvastatin and rosuvastatin) on the use of statins in Finland. METHODS: Data on patients purchasing atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, or simvastatin in 2002-2007 were retrieved from the nationwide Prescription Register. Outcome measures included the time trend in the numbers of purchasers and initiators of different statins, the morbidities of new users before and after the new policy, and the proportion of users of expensive statins switching to other statins. RESULTS: After the restriction, the numbers of purchasers of atorvastatin and rosuvastatin dropped, and atorvastatin and rosuvastatin were seldom prescribed as first-line therapy. Before the restriction, 20.9% of new users of atorvastatin and 18.4% of those of rosuvastatin had either coronary artery disease or familial hyperlipidemia. After the restriction the corresponding figures were 28.7% and 26.8%. After the restriction new users of atorvastatin and rosuvastatin were also more likely to use other cardiovascular medicines or antidiabetics or to have previous statin purchases. A total of 57.6% of those using atorvastatin and 49.2% of those using rosuvastatin before the restriction switched to a less expensive statin. CONCLUSIONS: Restricted reimbursement of expensive statins decreased their use. It seems that after the policy new statin treatments have channeled appropriately. Although it is likely that the cost-containment aim of the policy was reached, health and long-term effects are not known.

[Cost-effectiveness analysis of using high doses of atorvastatin for the secondary stroke prevention in Spain]. / Estudio coste-efectividad del uso de dosis altas de atorvastatina en la prevención secundaria del ictus en España.

AIM: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of atorvastatin at high doses (80 mg/day) for the reduction of the risk of fatal and nonfatal stroke in patients with recent cerebrovascular accident or transient ischemic attack (TIA) and without coronary heart disease in Spain using data from the SPARCL study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A discrete event simulation was developed to represent the natural evolution of a cohort of 1000 patients following a stroke or TIA. The risk for fatal and non fatal cardiovascular events was calculated from the clinical characteristic of patients in the SPARCL study for both treatment arms (atorvastatin 80 mg/day and placebo). Survival time, quality-adjusted-life-years (QALY), clinical events, and medical direct costs for a period of 5 years with a 3% per year discount were calculated for the two alternatives. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was made running 1000 simulations. RESULTS: Compared to placebo, atorvastatin 80 mg/day prevented 22 strokes (14 nonfatal and 8 fatal), 22 myocardial infarctions (19 nonfatal and 3 fatal), 33 TIAs, 8 unstable angina episodes and 37 re-vascularisations per 1000 patients over 5 years. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio after 1000 simulations was 9914 euros (95% CI = 5717 to 26,082) per QALY. The acceptability curve showed 99% of the simulations falling below an acceptability threshold of 30,000 euros/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, use of high dose atorvastatin (80 mg/day) for secondary stroke prevention is not only of significant clinical benefit but can also be considered cost effective in Spain. It produces important benefits in health with an incremental cost within reasonable limits.

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.

Impact of recent reforms in Austria on utilization and expenditure of PPIs and lipid-lowering drugs: implications for the future.

AIM: To assess the impact of a plethora of reforms and initiatives introduced in Austria since 2002 on the actual utilization and expenditure of proton pump inhibitors and statins. METHODS: Utilization of dispensed prescriptions in ambulatory care was captured from 2001 to 2007 using defined daily doses (DDD) as well as DDDs/1000 inhabitants/day for patients covered by the social health insurance system. The data were provided by the internal data warehouse of Hauptverband der Osterreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger. Total costs in Euros were used for the analysis from the payer's perspective. RESULTS: The reduction in the expenditure per DDD for both generic PPIs and statins was generally in line with expectations at over 60% of originator prices before multiple sources became available. There was also increased utilization of generics following the range of demand-side initiatives. This was 89.5% for generic omeprazole versus total omeprazole and 95.1% for generic simvastatin versus total simvastatin by the end of 2007. The utilization of atorvastatin fell substantially from 36.5% of all statins in 2002 to 10.7% by the end of 2007 following restrictions on its prescribing to patients not achieving target lipid levels with, for instance, generic simvastatin. The combined initiatives reduced expenditure per DDD for the PPIs and the statins by 41 and 60%, respectively, in 2007 versus 2001 levels. This reduction translated into lower expenditure for the statins in 2007 versus 2001 despite substantially increased utilization. CONCLUSION: The results provide examples to other European countries, especially the restrictions on atorvastatin utilization. Nevertheless, further initiatives will be needed to conserve resources as utilization rates grow in chronic disease areas. This includes potential lessons from other European countries.