Implications of ACC/AHA Versus ESC/EAS LDL-C Recommendations for Residual Risk Reduction in ASCVD: A Simulation Study From DA VINCI.

PURPOSE: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) recommendations differ between the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) (< 70 vs. < 55 mg/dl, respectively). In the DA VINCI study, residual cardiovascular risk was predicted in ASCVD patients. The extent to which relative and absolute risk might be lowered by achieving ACC/AHA versus ESC/EAS LDL-C recommended approaches was simulated. METHODS: DA VINCI was a cross-sectional observational study of patients prescribed lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) across 18 European countries. Ten-year cardiovascular risk (CVR) was predicted among ASCVD patients receiving stabilized LLT. For patients with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dl, the absolute LDL-C reduction required to achieve an LDL-C of < 70 or < 55 mg/dl (LDL-C of 69 or 54 mg/dl, respectively) was calculated. Relative and absolute risk reductions (RRRs and ARRs) were simulated. RESULTS: Of the 2039 patients, 61% did not achieve LDL-C < 70 mg/dl. For patients with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dl, median (interquartile range) baseline LDL-C and 10-year CVR were 93 (81-115) mg/dl and 32% (25-43%), respectively. Median LDL-C reductions of 24 (12-46) and 39 (27-91) mg/dl were needed to achieve an LDL-C of 69 and 54 mg/dl, respectively. Attaining ACC/AHA or ESC/EAS goals resulted in simulated RRRs of 14% (7-25%) and 22% (15-32%), respectively, and ARRs of 4% (2-7%) and 6% (4-9%), respectively. CONCLUSION: In ASCVD patients, achieving ESC/EAS LDL-C goals could result in a 2% additional ARR over 10 years versus the ACC/AHA approach.

Utility value estimates in cardiovascular disease and the effect of changing elicitation methods: a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE: Identify the most recent utility value estimates for cardiovascular disease (CVD) via systematic literature review (SLR) and explore trends in utility elicitation methods in the last 6 years. METHODS: This SLR was updated on January 25, 2018, and identified studies reporting utilities for myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, angina, peripheral artery disease (PAD), and any-cause revascularization by searching Embase, PubMed, Health Technology Assessment Database, and grey literature. RESULTS: A total of 375 studies reported CVD utilities (pre-2013 vs post-2013: MI, 38 vs 32; stroke, 86 vs 113; stable angina, 8 vs 9; undefined/unstable angina, 23 vs 8; PAD, 29 vs 13; revascularization, 54 vs 40). Median average utilities for MI, stroke, and revascularization increased over time (pre-2013 vs post-2013: MI, 0.71 vs 0.79; stroke, 0.63 vs 0.64; revascularization, 0.76 vs 0.81); angina and PAD showed a decrease in median values over time (stable angina, 0.83 vs 0.72; undefined/unstable angina, 0.70 vs 0.69; PAD, 0.76 vs 0.71). The proportion of utility estimates from trials increased across health states (pre-2013 vs post-2013: 22.5% vs 37.2%), as did the proportion of trials using the EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D; pre-2013 vs post-2013: 73.8% vs 91.4%). Use of methods such as the standard gamble, time trade-off, and Health Utilities Index has declined. CONCLUSIONS: Health state utilities for cardiovascular health states have changed in the last 6 years, likely due to changes in the types of studies conducted, the patient populations evaluated, and possibly changing utility elicitation methods. The EQ-5D has been used more frequently.

Comparison of Recommendations and Use of Cardiovascular Risk Equations by Health Technology Assessment Agencies and Clinical Guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: To identify risk equations for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) in primary and secondary prevention settings that are used or recommended by health technology assessment (HTA) organizations and in clinical guidelines (CGs). METHODS: A targeted literature review was conducted using a two-stage search strategy. First, HTA reviews of manufacturers' drug submissions, reports from established HTA organizations (Europe, Canada, and Australia), and CGs from countries with and without HTA organizations, including the United States, were identified. Documents published between September 30, 2006 and September 30, 2016, were examined for cardiovascular risk equations, recommendations, and commentaries. Next, publications associated with risk equations and cited by HTA and CG documents were retrieved. This literature was examined to extract commentaries and risk equation study characteristics. RESULTS: The review identified 47 risk equations, 25 in the primary CVD prevention setting (i.e., patients with no CVD history), including 5 for CVD prevention in diabetes and 22 solely in secondary prevention settings; 11 were identified for heart failure, 3 for stroke or transient ischemic attack, 2 for stable angina, and 11 for acute coronary syndrome or related conditions. A small set of primary prevention equations was found to be commonly used by HTAs, whereas secondary prevention equations were less common in HTA documents. CGs provided more risk equations as options than HTA documents. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is an abundance of risk equations developed for primary and secondary prevention, there remains a need for additional research to provide sufficient clinical and HTA guidance for risk estimation, particularly in high-risk or secondary prevention settings.

Migraine day frequency in migraine prevention: longitudinal modelling approaches.

BACKGROUND: Health economic models are critical tools to inform reimbursement agencies on health care interventions. Many clinical trials report outcomes using the frequency of an event over a set period of time, for example, the primary efficacy outcome in most clinical trials of migraine prevention is mean change in the frequency of migraine days (MDs) per 28 days (monthly MDs [MMD]) relative to baseline for active treatment versus placebo. Using these cohort-level endpoints in economic models, accounting for variation among patients is challenging. In this analysis, parametric models of change in MMD for migraine preventives were assessed using data from erenumab clinical studies. METHODS: MMD observations from the double-blind phases of two studies of erenumab were used: one in episodic migraine (EM) (NCT02456740) and one in chronic migraine (CM) (NCT02066415). For each trial, two longitudinal regression models were fitted: negative binomial and beta binomial. For a thorough comparison we also present the fitting from the standard multilevel Poisson and the zero inflated negative binomial. RESULTS: Using the erenumab study data, both the negative binomial and beta-binomial models provided unbiased estimates relative to observed trial data with well-fitting distribution at various time points. CONCLUSIONS: This proposed methodology, which has not been previously applied in migraine, has shown that these models may be suitable for estimating MMD frequency. Modelling MMD using negative binomial and beta-binomial distributions can be advantageous because these models can capture intra- and inter-patient variability so that trial observations can be modelled parametrically for the purposes of economic evaluation of migraine prevention. Such models have implications for use in a wide range of disease areas when assessing repeated measured utility values.

Longitudinal assessment of utilities in patients with migraine: an analysis of erenumab randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness analyses in patients with migraine require estimates of patients' utility values and how these relate to monthly migraine days (MMDs). This analysis examined four different modelling approaches to assess utility values as a function of MMDs. METHODS: Disease-specific patient-reported outcomes from three erenumab clinical studies (two in episodic migraine [NCT02456740 and NCT02483585] and one in chronic migraine [NCT02066415]) were mapped to the 5-dimension EuroQol questionnaire (EQ-5D) as a function of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ) and the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6™) using published algorithms. The mapped utility values were used to estimate generic, preference-based utility values suitable for use in economic models. Four models were assessed to explain utility values as a function of MMDs: a linear mixed effects model with restricted maximum likelihood (REML), a fractional response model with logit link, a fractional response model with probit link and a beta regression model. RESULTS: All models tested showed very similar fittings. Root mean squared errors were similar in the four models assessed (0.115, 0.114, 0.114 and 0.114, for the linear mixed effect model with REML, fractional response model with logit link, fractional response model with probit link and beta regression model respectively), when mapped from MSQ. Mean absolute errors for the four models tested were also similar when mapped from MSQ (0.085, 0.086, 0.085 and 0.085) and HIT-6 and (0.087, 0.088, 0.088 and 0.089) for the linear mixed effect model with REML, fractional response model with logit link, fractional response model with probit link and beta regression model, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis describes the assessment of longitudinal approaches in modelling utility values and the four models proposed fitted the observed data well. Mapped utility values for patients treated with erenumab were generally higher than those for individuals treated with placebo with equivalent number of MMDs. Linking patient utility values to MMDs allows utility estimates for different levels of MMD to be predicted, for use in economic evaluations of preventive therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov numbers of the trials used in this study: STRIVE, NCT02456740 (registered May 14, 2015), ARISE, NCT02483585 (registered June 12, 2015) and NCT02066415 (registered Feb 17, 2014).

Generic utilities in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients stratified according to different staging systems.

BACKGROUND: To determine generic utilities for Spanish chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients stratified by different classifications: GOLD 2007, GOLD 2013, GesEPOC 2012 and BODEx index. METHODS: Multicentre, observational, cross-sectional study. Patients were aged ≥40 years, with spirometrically confirmed COPD. Utility values were derived from EQ-5D-3 L. Means, standard deviations (SD), medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) were computed based on the different classifications. Differences in median utilities between groups were assessed by non-parametric tests. RESULTS: 346 patients were included, of which 85.5% were male with a mean age of 67.9 (SD = 9.7) years and a mean duration of COPD of 7.6 (SD = 5.8) years; 80.3% were ex-smokers and the mean smoking history was 54.2 (SD = 33.2) pack-years. Median utilities (IQR) by GOLD 2007 were 0.87 (0.22) for moderate; 0.80 (0.26) for severe and 0.67 (0.42) for very-severe patients (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Median utilities by GOLD 2013 were group A: 1.0 (0.09); group B: 0.87 (0.13); group C: 1.0 (0.16); group D: 0.74 (0.29); comparisons were statistically significant (p < 0.001) except A vs C. Median utilities by GesEPOC phenotypes were 0.84 (0.33) for non exacerbator; 0.80 (0.26) for COPD-asthma overlap; 0.71 (0.62) for exacerbator with emphysema; 0.72 (0.57) for exacerbator with chronic bronchitis (p < 0.001). Comparisons between patients with or without exacerbations and between patients with COPD-asthma overlap and exacerbator with chronic bronchitis were statistically-significant (p < 0.001). Median utilities by BODEx index were: group 0-2: 0.89 (0.20); group 3-4: 0.80 (0.27); group 5-6: 0.67 (0.29); group 7-9: 0.41 (0.31). All comparisons were significant (p < 0.001) except between groups 3-4 and 5-6. CONCLUSION: Irrespective of the classification used utilities were associated to disease severity. Some clinical phenotypes were associated with worse utilities, probably related to a higher frequency of exacerbations. GOLD 2007 guidelines and BODEx index better discriminated patients with a worse health status than GOLD 2013 guidelines, while GOLD 2013 guidelines were better able to identify a smaller group of patients with the best health.

A retrospective nationwide analysis of evolocumab use in Sweden and its effect on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels.

Background: Treatment with proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors reduces low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and decreases the incidence of major ischaemic events in clinical trials. However, less is known about the efficacy of PCSK9 inhibition in clinical practice. This study aimed to describe the change in LDL-C levels over time and LDL-C goal achievement in patients with/without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), who were prescribed evolocumab in clinical practice, and to describe adherence to and persistence with treatment. Methods: Patients in Sweden with at least one evolocumab prescription filled between July 2015 and May 2020 were included. Medical history and lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) were sourced from national registries. LDL-C levels before and after treatment initiation were assessed using medical records. Persistence with and adherence to evolocumab and oral LLT were assessed up to 12 months after treatment initiation using the refill-gap method and proportion of days covered, respectively. Results: Of the 2,360 patients with at least one prescription for evolocumab, 2,341 were included; 1,858 had ASCVD. Persistence with (76%) and adherence to (86%) evolocumab were high throughout the 12 months following initiation. Mean LDL-C levels decreased by 53% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 51-55%) in patients adherent to evolocumab (n = 567) and 59% (95% CI: 55-63%) in patients adherent to evolocumab and oral LLT (n = 186). Similar reductions in LDL-C were observed in patients with/without ASCVD. Reduced LDL-C levels remained stable during follow-up. Amongst patients adherent to evolocumab and those adherent to evolocumab and oral LLT, 23 and 55% achieved the LDL-C goal of <1.4 mmol/L, respectively. Conclusions: The evolocumab LDL-C-lowering effect observed in clinical trials was confirmed in clinical practice in Sweden, particularly in patients also treated with oral LLT. During follow-up, adherence to and persistence with evolocumab were high, with stable reduced levels of LDL-C during observation.

Budget impact analysis of first-line treatment with pazopanib for advanced renal cell carcinoma in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Due to economic constraints, cancer therapies are under close scrutiny by clinicians, pharmacists and payers alike. There is no published pharmacoeconomic evidence guiding the choice of first-line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the Spanish setting. We aimed to develop a model describing the natural history of RCC that can be used in healthcare decision-making. We particularly analyzed the budget impact associated with the introduction of pazopanib compared to sunitinib under the Spanish National Healthcare System (NHS) perspective. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to estimate the future number of cases of advanced RCC (patients with favorable or intermediate risk) resulting either from initial diagnosis or disease progression after surgery. The model parameters were obtained from the literature. We assumed that patients would receive either pazopanib or sunitinib as first-line therapy until disease progression. Pharmacological costs and costs associated with the management of adverse events (AE) were considered. A univariate sensitivity analysis was undertaken in order to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: The model predicted an adult RCC prevalence of 7.5/100,000 (1-year), 20.7/100,000 (3-year) and 32.5/100,000 (5-year). These figures are very close to GLOBOCAN reported RCC prevalence estimates of 7.6/100,000, 20.2/100,000 and 31.1/100,000, respectively. The model predicts 1,591 advanced RCC patients with favorable or intermediate risk in Spain in 2013. Annual per patient pharmacological costs were €32,365 and €39,232 with pazopanib and sunitinib, respectively. Annual costs associated with the management of AE were €662 and €974, respectively. Overall annual per patient costs were €7,179 (18%) lower with pazopanib compared to sunitinib. For every point increase in the percentage of patients treated with pazopanib, the NHS would save €67,236. If all the 1,591 patients predicted were treated with pazopanib, the NHS would save €6,723,622 in 2013. Results were robust according to the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a model that accurately reproduces the natural history of RCC and can be thus used in healthcare decision-making. When applied to the Spanish case, the introduction of pazopanib results in savings for the NHS, as a consequence of both reduced pharmacological costs and lower costs associated with the management of AE compared to sunitinib.

Optimal implementation of the 2019 ESC/EAS dyslipidaemia guidelines in patients with and without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease across Europe: a simulation based on the DA VINCI study.

Background: The impact of the stepwise implementation of the 2019 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) treatment algorithm on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal attainment was simulated in patients from the DA VINCI study. Methods: Monte Carlo simulation was used to evaluate treatment optimisation scenarios, based on a patient's risk category: statin intensification (step 1), addition of ezetimibe (step 2), and addition of a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor (step 3). Residual cardiovascular risk and predicted relative and absolute risk reduction (RRR and ARR) in cardiovascular events were assessed. Findings: In DA VINCI, 2482 patients did not achieve their 2019 ESC/EAS LDL-C goals and were included in the simulation. In patients without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) (n = 962), 27.0% (n = 259) and 57.0% (n = 548) are likely to achieve their LDL-C goals at step 1 and step 2, respectively. Of those at very high risk without ASCVD (n = 74), 88.1% (n = 65) are likely to achieve their LDL-C goals at step 3. In patients with ASCVD (n = 1520), 12.0% (n = 183), 42.1% (n = 641) and 93.2% (n = 1416) are likely to achieve their LDL-C goals at steps 1, 2 and 3, respectively. In patients with and without ASCVD, treatment optimisation may result in mean simulated RRR of 24.0% and 17.7%, respectively, and ARR of 8.1% and 2.6%, respectively. Interpretation: Most patients at high cardiovascular risk are unlikely to achieve LDL-C goals through statin optimisation and ezetimibe, and will require a PCSK9 inhibitor, leading to greater reduction in cardiovascular risk. Funding: Amgen.

European Physician Survey Characterizing the Clinical Pathway and Treatment Patterns of Patients Post-Myocardial Infarction.

INTRODUCTION: The 2019 European Society of Cardiology and European Atherosclerosis Society (2019 ESC/EAS) guidelines stress the importance of managing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) after myocardial infarction (MI) to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. Information on guideline implementation is limited. The aim of this survey was to describe current clinical practice regarding LDL-C management in the first year post-MI across Europe, improving understanding of the role of ESC/EAS guidelines on clinical practice. METHODS: A qualitative web-based cross-sectional physician survey about the patient pathway and LDL-C management post-MI was conducted in 360 physicians from France, Italy, Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, and the UK (n = 60/country) between December 2019 and June 2020. Secondary and primary care physicians (SCPs/PCPs) described their experiences treating patients post-MI over the preceding 2 months. RESULTS: Physicians reported that on average 90.7% of patients not prescribed lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) before an MI initiated LLT as inpatients; for patients already taking LLT, treatment was intensified for 64.7% of inpatients post-MI. SCPs reported prescribing higher-intensity statins and/or ezetimibe for between 72.3% (Italy) and 88.6% (UK) of patients post-MI. More than 80.0% of SCPs and 51.2% of PCPs stated that they would initiate a change in LLT immediately if patients did not achieve their LDL-C treatment goal by 12 weeks post-MI; 82.0% of SCPs and 55.1% of PCPs reported referring to 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines for management of patients post-MI. Barriers to initiating PCSK9 inhibitors (PCSK9is) included prior prescription of a maximally tolerated dose of statin (49.4%) and/or ezetimibe (38.9%), requirement to reach threshold LDL-C levels (44.9%), and pre-authorization requirements (30.4%). CONCLUSION: Differences in clinical practice post-MI were reported across the countries surveyed, including divergence between 2019 ESC/EAS and local guidelines. Increased use of innovative medicines to achieve LDL-C goals should reduce risk of subsequent cardiovascular events in very high-risk patients post-MI.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of timely dialysis referral after renal transplant failure in Spain.

BACKGROUND: A cost-effectiveness analysis of timely dialysis referral after renal transplant failure was undertaken from the perspective of the Public Administration. The current Spanish situation, where all the patients undergoing graft function loss are referred back to dialysis in a late manner, was compared to an ideal scenario where all the patients are timely referred. METHODS: A Markov model was developed in which six health states were defined: hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, kidney transplantation, late referral hemodialysis, late referral peritoneal dialysis and death. The model carried out a simulation of the progression of renal disease for a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients aged 40, who were observed in a lifetime temporal horizon of 45 years. In depth sensitivity analyses were performed in order to ensure the robustness of the results obtained. RESULTS: Considering a discount rate of 3 %, timely referral showed an incremental cost of 211 €, compared to late referral. This cost increase was however a consequence of the incremental survival observed. The incremental effectiveness was 0.0087 quality-adjusted life years (QALY). When comparing both scenarios, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 24,390 €/QALY was obtained, meaning that timely dialysis referral might be an efficient alternative if a willingness-to-pay threshold of 45,000 €/QALY is considered. This result proved to be independent of the proportion of late referral patients observed. The acceptance probability of timely referral was 61.90 %, while late referral was acceptable in 38.10 % of the simulations. If we however restrict the analysis to those situations not involving any loss of effectiveness, the acceptance probability of timely referral was 70.10 %, increasing twofold that of late referral (29.90 %). CONCLUSIONS: Timely dialysis referral after graft function loss might be an efficient alternative in Spain, improving both patients' survival rates and health-related quality of life at an affordable cost. Spanish Public Health authorities might therefore promote the inclusion of specific recommendations for this group of patients within the existing clinical guidelines.

Longitudinal evaluation of treatment patterns, risk factors and outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease treated with lipid-lowering therapy in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: To compare treatment patterns, risk factors and cardiovascular disease (CVD) event rates in the UK from 2008 to 2017. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. SETTING: UK primary care. PARTICIPANTS: We selected 10 annual cohorts of patients with documented CVD receiving lipid-lowering therapy and the subsets with myocardial infarction (MI). Each cohort included patients ≥18 years old, with ≥1 year of medical history and ≥2 lipid-lowering therapy prescriptions in the prior year. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: For each annual cohort, we identified cardiovascular risk factors and lipid-lowering therapy and estimated the 1-year composite rate of fatal and non-fatal MI, ischaemic stroke (IS) or revascularisation. RESULTS: The documented CVD cohort mean age was 71.6 years in 2008 (N=173 424) and 72.5 (N=94 418) in 2017; in the MI subset, mean age was 70.1 years in 2008 (N=38 999) and 70.4 in 2017 (N=25 900). Both populations had larger proportions of men. In the documented CVD cohort, the proportion receiving high-intensity lipid-lowering therapy from 2008 to 2017 doubled from 16% to 32%; in the MI subset, the increase was 20% to 48%. In the documented CVD cohort, the proportion of patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) <1.8 mmol/L increased from 28% to 38%; in the MI subset, the proportion with LDL-C <1.8 mmol/L increased from 32% to 42%. The composite event rate per 100 person-years declined over time, from 2.5 to 2.0 in the documented CVD cohort, and from 3.7 to 2.8 in the MI subset. After excluding revascularisation from the composite outcome, the decline in the event rate in both populations was substantially attenuated. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an increase in high-intensity therapy use and a decline in revascularisation, more than half of patients did not receive high-intensity lipid-lowering therapy by 2017 and incidence rates of MI and IS remained virtually unchanged.

Effects of lipid-lowering treatment intensity and adherence on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with a recent myocardial infarction: a Swedish register-based study.

Background: Oral lipid-lowering treatment (LLT) is the standard of care for patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, insufficient treatment intensity and poor adherence can lead to suboptimal treatment benefit, rendering patients at increased risk of CVD. Aims: The objective of this study was to evaluate trends in LLT intensity and adherence in Sweden over time, and their association with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) after recent myocardial infarction (MI), and also to assess the impact of transition from secondary to primary care on intensity and adherence. Methods and results: This retrospective observational cohort study used data from Swedish nationwide patient registers and included patients on LLT after an MI in the years 2010-2016 (n = 50,298; mean age, 68 years; 69% men). LLT intensity was evaluated over time (overall, for 2010-2013 and for 2014-2016) as the proportion of patients prescribed low-, moderate-, and high-intensity LLT. Adherence was assessed as the proportion of days covered. A combined measure of intensity and adherence was also considered. Differences in treatment patterns and MACE were assessed. Initiation of high-intensity LLT increased over the two time periods studied (2010-2013, 32%; 2014-2016, 91%). Adherence varied by LLT intensity and was highest in patients receiving high-intensity LLT (>80%), especially during the first time period. Little change in treatment intensity or the combined measure of intensity and adherence was observed after transition to primary care. There was a significant association between the combined measure of intensity and adherence and MACE reduction (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] per 10% increase in the combined measure: 0.84 [0.82-0.86]; P < 0.01). Conclusion: The proportion of post-MI patients with high LLT intensity and adherence has increased in recent years, with little change after transfer from specialist to primary care. The combination of LLT intensity and adherence is important for preventing future cardiovascular events.

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels exceed the recommended European threshold for PCSK9i initiation: lessons from the HEYMANS study.

AIMS: To describe the characteristics of patients receiving evolocumab in clinical practice across 12 European countries and simulate the association between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction and cardiovascular (CV) risk reduction. METHODS AND RESULTS: The characteristics of hyperlipidaemic patients at initiation of evolocumab and treatment patterns study-HEYMANS (n = 1952) is a prospective registry of patients ≥18 years old who initiated evolocumab from 1 August 2015 onwards. Mean (standard deviation) age was 60 (10.8), 85% had a prior CV event, 45% were diagnosed with familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH), and 60% had statin intolerance. At evolocumab initiation, 43% were receiving any statin, 16% were receiving ezetimibe without statin, and 41% received no background lipid-lowering therapy (LLT), with LDL-C levels reflecting local proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor (PCSK9i) reimbursement criteria. Median LDL-C decreased from 3.98 to 1.63 mmol/L within 3 months of evolocumab initiation and was maintained over 24 months. Overall, 58% achieved risk-based 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society LDL-C goals but that proportion was higher (68%) in patients receiving background LLT compared with those not receiving background LLT (44%). In patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease without FH, the simulated relative CV risk reduction associated with evolocumab treatment was 34% (25-44%). CONCLUSION: Across Europe, LDL-C levels at evolocumab initiation were three times higher than recommended thresholds for PCSK9i initiation, reflecting disparities between implementation and guidelines. More patients attained risk-based LDL-C goals when receiving evolocumab in combination with LLT vs. those not receiving combination therapy. Population health could be improved and LDL-C goals better attained if LDL-C thresholds for PCSK9i reimbursement were lowered, enabling more patients to receive combination therapy when needed.

Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials Evaluating the Comparative Efficacy of Lipid-Lowering Therapies Added to Maximally Tolerated Statins for the Reduction of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol.

Background Lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels decreases major cardiovascular events and is recommended for patients at elevated cardiovascular risk. However, appropriate doses of statin therapy are often insufficient to reduce LDL-C in accordance with current guidelines. In such cases, treatment could be supplemented with nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy. Methods and Results A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis were conducted on randomized controlled trials of nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy added to maximally tolerated statins, including statin-intolerant patients. The primary objective was to assess relative efficacy of nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy in reducing LDL-C levels at week 12. Secondary objectives included the following: LDL-C level reduction at week 24 and change in non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein B at week 12. There were 48 randomized controlled trials included in the primary network meta-analysis. All nonstatin agents significantly reduced LDL-C from baseline versus placebo, regardless of background therapy. At week 12, evolocumab, 140 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W)/420 mg once a month, and alirocumab, 150 mg Q2W, were the most efficacious regimens, followed by alirocumab, 75 mg Q2W, alirocumab, 300 mg once a month, inclisiran, bempedoic acid/ezetimibe fixed-dose combination, and ezetimibe and bempedoic acid used as monotherapies. Primary end point results were generally consistent at week 24, and for other lipid end points at week 12. Conclusions Evolocumab, 140 mg Q2W/420 mg once a month, and alirocumab, 150 mg Q2W, were consistently the most efficacious nonstatin regimens when added to maximally tolerated statins to lower LDL-C, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B levels and facilitate attainment of guideline-recommended risk-stratified lipoprotein levels.

Achieving Lower LDL-C Levels After a Recent Myocardial Infarction Might Be Associated with Lower Healthcare Resource Use and Costs in Spain.

INTRODUCTION: There is little evidence on the relationship between achieved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and costs in patients on lipid-lowering therapy (LLT). We described healthcare resource use and costs (direct and indirect) by achieved LDL-C in patients receiving LLT after a recent myocardial infarction (MI) in Spain. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of anonymized electronic medical records from seven regions in Spain (BIG-PAC® database; n = 1.9 million). Eligible patients were adults (≥ 18 years) hospitalized for an MI between January 2015 and December 2017, treated with a statin and/or ezetimibe, and having recorded LDL-C values at baseline and during follow-up. Healthcare resource use and direct and indirect costs (in 2018, €) were described by achieved LDL-C levels during a follow-up of 18 months. RESULTS: Of 6025 patients (mean age, 69.7 years; 77% male), only 11% achieved LDL-C goals as defined in the 2016 ESC/EAS guidelines (< 70 mg/dL), and just 1% reached the lower target (< 55 mg/dL) in the current 2019 guidelines. Achieving lower LDL-C levels translated to lower healthcare resource use and costs. Mean total (direct and indirect) costs ranged from €5044 for patients with LDL-C < 55 mg/dL to €7567 for patients with LDL-C ≥ 130 mg/dL. CONCLUSION: Very few patients achieved recommended LDL-C goals despite using LLT. Achieving lower LDL-C levels after an MI might be associated with lower healthcare resource use and costs. Use of more intensive LLT, leading to greater reductions in LDL-C, could therefore be beneficial both from a clinical and an economic perspective.

Cost-effectiveness of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibition with evolocumab in patients with a history of myocardial infarction in Sweden.

AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibition with evolocumab added to standard-of-care lipid-lowering treatment [maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of statin and ezetimibe] in Swedish patients with a history of myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using a Markov model based on Swedish observational data on cardiovascular event rates and efficacy from the FOURIER trial. Three risk profiles were considered: recent MI in the previous year; history of MI with a risk factor; and history of MI with a second event within 2 years. For each population, three minimum baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels were considered: 2.5 mmol/L (≈100 mg/dL), based on the current reimbursement recommendation in Sweden; 1.8 mmol/L (≈70 mg/dL), based on 2016 ESC/EAS guidelines; and 1.4 mmol/L (≈55 mg/dL), or 1.0 mmol/L (≈40 mg/dL) for MI with a second event, based on 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibition with evolocumab was associated with increased quality-adjusted life-years and costs vs. standard-of-care therapy. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were below SEK700 000 (∼€66 500), the generally accepted willingness-to-pay threshold in Sweden, for minimum LDL-C levels of 2.3 (recent MI), 1.7 (MI with a risk factor), and 1.7 mmol/L (MI with a second event). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that base-case results were robust to changes in model parameters. CONCLUSION: Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibition with evolocumab added to MTD of statin and ezetimibe may be considered cost-effective at its list price for minimum LDL-C levels of 1.7-2.3 mmol/L, depending on risk profile, with ICERs below the accepted willingness-to-pay threshold in Sweden.

Cost analysis of the Spanish renal replacement therapy programme.

BACKGROUND: A cost analysis of the Spanish Renal Replacement Therapy (RRT) programme in the year 2010, for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients, was performed from the perspective of the Public Administration. METHODS: The costs associated with each RRT modality [hemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD) and kidney transplantation (Tx)] were analysed. The Spanish ESRD incidence and prevalence figures in the year 2010 were forecasted in order to enable the calculation of an aggregate cost for each modality. Costs were mainly computed based on a review of the existing literature and of the Official Bulletins of the Spanish Autonomous Communities. Data from Oblikue Consulting eSalud health care costs database and from several Spanish public sources were also employed. RESULTS: In the year 2010, the forecasted incidence figures for HD, PD and Tx were 5409, 822 and 2317 patients, respectively. The forecasted prevalence figures were 22,582, 2420 and 24,761 patients, respectively. The average annual per-patient costs (incidence and prevalence) were €2651 and €37,968 (HD), €1808 and €25,826 (PD) and €38,313 and €6283 (Tx). Indirect costs amounted to €8929 (HD), €7429 (PD) and €5483 (Tx). The economic impact of the Spanish RRT programme on the Public Administration budget was estimated at ~€1829 million (indirect costs included): €1327 (HD), €109 (PD) and €393 (Tx) million. CONCLUSIONS: HD accounted for >70% of the aggregate costs of the Spanish RRT programme in 2010. From a costs minimization perspective, it would be preferable if the number of incident and prevalent patients in PD were increased.

Estimation of a multiattribute utility function for the Spanish version of the TooL questionnaire.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate and assess the psychometric properties of a multiattribute utility function (MAUF) for the Spanish version of the Tolerability and Quality of Life (TooL questionnaire). METHODS: Balanced data on 243 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder were gathered. In addition to the demographic and clinical variables and the usual generic health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaires (EuroQol-5D [EQ-5D] and Short Form-6D [SF-6D]), instruments considered included the Spanish versions of the Positive and Negative Symptoms of Schizophrenia Scale (PANSS), Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Udvalg for Kliniske Undersogelser (UKU), and Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGIS) scale. MAUF parameters estimation involved a number of visual analogue scale (VAS) and time trade-off (TTO) ratings that proved difficult to be performed by the patients. After checking for inconsistencies in patient responses, the original sample was reduced to a still balanced subsample of 70 individuals. A multiplicative-form MAUF was estimated following the standard methodology. RESULTS: Good convergent validity was demonstrated because utility estimates from the MAUF presented strong correlations with utilities from the generic HRQoL instruments included: SF-6D (0.66, P < 0.01), EQ-5D (0.69, P < 0.01), and moderate correlations with the rest of instruments considered: PANSS (-0.27, P = 0.10), YMRS (-0.30, P = 0.08), MADRS (-0.48, P < 0.01), UKU (-0.35, P < 0.01). Criterion validity was also met because differences in mean utilities by clinical severity were found (P < 0.01). Utilities from the MAUF covered a wider range of health states [0.04,1.00] than those from the SF-6D [0.53,1.00] and EQ-5D [0.23,0.96]. CONCLUSIONS: Utilities from the MAUF showed good psychometric properties, serving as a complement to generic health utilities. If misapplied, however, utilities from this instrument might favor the positive evaluation of drugs showing fewer associated side effects.

Estimation of the increased risk associated with recurrent events or polyvascular atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the United Kingdom.

AIMS: The aims of this study were to re-estimate the international REduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) risk equation using United Kingdom data and to distinguish different relative hazards for specific atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event histories. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients in the UK Clinical Research Practice Datalink (CPRD) were included as of 1 January 2005 if they were 40 years or older, had 2 or more years of prior data, received one or more moderate or high-intensity statin in the previous year, and had a history of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or other atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Patients were followed until a composite endpoint of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke or cardiovascular death, loss to follow-up, or end of observation. We re-estimated the REACH risk equation hazard ratios (HRs) using CPRD data (re-estimated REACH model). Our event history model replaced the REACH vascular bed variables with more specific event histories. There were 60,838 patients with 5.25 years of mean follow-up. In the validation model, HRs were in the same direction, and generally greater than REACH. In the event history model, HRs compared to other atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease alone included: recurrent myocardial infarction (HR 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.34), recurrent ischemic stroke (HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.03-1.80), myocardial infarction and other atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.23-1.38), ischemic stroke and other atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.23-1.60), myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.23-3.04), and myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke and other atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.47-2.54). CONCLUSION: A detailed cardiovascular event history may be useful for estimating the relative risk of future cardiovascular events.