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.

Patient Characteristics and Treatment Patterns among Medicare Beneficiaries Initiating PCSK9 Inhibitor Therapy.

PURPOSE: There is limited real-world evidence around use of proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) among US older adults. This study examined baseline characteristics of fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries newly initiating PCSK9i therapy during the period immediately following market availability. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used Medicare claims (2013-2016) to identify 5051 FFS Medicare beneficiaries who filled ≥ 1 PCSK9i prescription between August 2015 and December 2016. We analyzed patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and baseline healthcare expenditures in the 12-month period prior to PCSK9i initiation, for these beneficiaries. RESULTS: Most beneficiaries initiating PCSK9i were female (57%), < 75 years of age (61%), white (89%), and lived in metropolitan areas (83%). At baseline, these PCSK9i initiators had 6 chronic conditions on average, with conditions such as hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and ischemic heart disease being most prevalent. Approximately 88% had a diagnosis of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and 14% experienced acute cardiovascular events during the 12-month baseline period. Use of any statin and/or ezetimibe ranged from 54 to 76% in the 6-month and 24-month baseline period. Their total annual Medicare expenditures averaged US$17,552, of which most were attributable to ambulatory care and prescription use, in the 12-month baseline period. CONCLUSION: High burden of cardiovascular conditions and prescription expenditures at baseline were common among FFS beneficiaries initiating PCSK9i therapy. These findings suggest that physicians prescribe PCSK9i to elderly patients at high risk for adverse cardiovascular events. Considering the evolving treatment landscape, PCSK9i utilization might increase in Medicare.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ezetimibe as the Add-on Treatment to Moderate-Dose Rosuvastatin versus High-Dose Rosuvastatin in the Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases in China: A Markov Model Analysis.

BACKGROUND: For patients with inadequate control of cholesterol using moderate-dose statins in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVD), either doubling the dose of statins or adding ezetimibe should be considered. The cost-effectiveness of them is unknown in the Chinese context. The aim of this study is to compare the cost and effectiveness of the two regimens, and estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). METHODS: A Markov model of five health statuses were used to estimate long-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of the two treatment regimens from the healthcare perspective. The effectiveness data used to calculate the transition probability was based on a previously published randomized trial. The utility data was gathered from literature and the costs were gathered from the electronic medical record system of West China Hospital in Chinese Yuan (CNY) in 2017 price. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted. RESULTS: The ICER for ezetimibe plus moderate-dose rosuvastatin was 47,102.99 CNY per QALY for 20 years simulation, which did not reach the threshold of per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of 59,660 CNY per QALY in 2017 in China. Non-CVD-related mortality and CVD-related mortality contributed most to the ICER. CONCLUSION: Adding ezetimibe to the moderate-dose statin in secondary prevention for CVD is cost-effective, compared with the high-dose statin in the Chinese context whose low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) was not inadequately controlled by moderate-dose statin alone.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Non-Statin Lipid-Modifying Agents for Secondary Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Among Statin-Treated Patients in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Using non-statin lipid-modifying agents in combination with statin therapy provides additional benefits for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduction, but their value for money has only been evaluated in high-income countries (HICs). Furthermore, studies mainly derive effectiveness data from a single trial or older meta-analyses. OBJECTIVES: Our study used data from the most recent network meta-analysis (NMA) and local parameters to assess the cost effectiveness of non-statin agents in statin-treated patients with a history of CVD. METHODS: A published Markov model was adopted to investigate lifetime outcomes: (1) number of recurrent CVD events prevented, (2) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, (3) costs and (4) incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) and ezetimibe added to statin therapy. Event rates and effectiveness inputs were obtained from the NMA. Cost and utility data were gathered from published studies conducted in Thailand. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Patients receiving PCSK9i and ezetimibe experienced fewer recurrent CVD events (number needed to treat [NNT] 17 and 30) and more QALYs (0.168 and 0.096 QALYs gained per person). However, under the societal perspective and at current acquisition costs in 2018, ICERs of both agents were $US1,223,995 and 27,361 per QALY gained, respectively. Based on threshold analyses, the costs need to be reduced by 97 and 85%, respectively, for PCSK9i and ezetimibe to be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the proven effectiveness of PCSK9i and ezetimibe, the costs of these agents need to reduce to a much greater extent than in HICs to be cost-effective in Thailand.

Cost-effectiveness of lipid lowering with statins and ezetimibe in chronic kidney disease.

Statin-based treatments reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in patients with non-dialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD), but it is unclear which regimen is the most cost-effective. We used the Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP) CKD-CVD policy model to evaluate the effect of statins and ezetimibe on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and health care costs in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK). Net costs below $100,000/QALY (US) or £20,000/QALY (UK) were considered cost-effective. We investigated statin regimens with or without ezetimibe 10 mg. Treatment effects on cardiovascular risk were estimated per 1-mmol/L reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol as reported in the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration meta-analysis, and reductions in LDL cholesterol were estimated for each statin/ezetimibe regimen. In the US, atorvastatin 40 mg ($0.103/day as of January 2019) increased life expectancy by 0.23 to 0.31 QALYs in non-dialysis patients with stages 3B to 5 CKD, at a net cost of $20,300 to $78,200/QALY. Adding ezetimibe 10 mg ($0.203/day) increased life expectancy by an additional 0.05 to 0.07 QALYs, at a net cost of $43,600 to $91,500/QALY. The cost-effectiveness findings and policy implications in the UK were similar. In summary, in patients with non-dialysis-dependent CKD, the evidence suggests that statin/ezetimibe combination therapy is a cost-effective treatment to reduce the risk of CVD.

Cost-effectiveness and Budget Impact of Treatment with Evolocumab Versus Statins and Ezetimibe for Hypercholesterolemia in Spain.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To analyze the cost-effectiveness ratio and budget impact of treatment with evolocumab (PCSK9 inhibitor) for patients in secondary prevention in the Spanish National Health System. METHODS: A budget impact analysis, decision tree and Markov models were designed under the public health system perspective, based on the only study with morbidity and mortality data (FOURIER). The alternatives compared were evolocumab vs statins, and dual therapy with ezetimibe in 5% of the population. The measure of effectiveness used was the number of cardiovascular events avoided. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The average annual cost of patients receiving evolocumab was 11 134.78€ and 393.83€ for standard treatment (statins plus ezetimibe). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was > 600 000 € per avoided cardiovascular event for both assessed outcomes (first: cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and hospitalization due to unstable angina or coronary revascularization; second: includes the first 3 events). To perform the 10-year Markov model, the average cost of standard treatment was 13 948.45€ vs 471 417.37€ with evolocumab. Treatment with evolocumab for patients with familial hypercholesterolemia would cost between 3 and 6.1 million euros, assuming a difference of 2.5 and 5.1 million euros with the standard treatment (2017). This difference would be between 204.3 and 1364.7 million euros (2021) for those with nonfamiliar hypercholesterolemia (secondary prevention). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with evolocumab is associated with a lower frequency of cardiovascular events, but is inefficient for patients suitable to receive this drug in the Spanish National Health System.

Are PCSK9 Inhibitors Cost Effective?

The objective of this study was to review available health economic evaluations of PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitors. These drugs reduce low-density lipid cholesterol levels and cardiovascular risk, but their cost effectiveness has been questioned. We searched Medline and Embase for economic evaluations in any language at any time. Studies were included if they analysed any PCSK9 inhibitor compared with either statin alone or in combination with ezetimibe or any other therapy considered standard prior to the introduction of PCSK9 inhibitors. We found ten full health economic evaluations of PCSK9 inhibitors, two from Europe and eight from the United States (US). Six of the eight from the US were from two different consortia that analysed PCSK9 inhibitors at different stages through the development of evidence. All studies generally reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios above suggested thresholds for cost effectiveness, except one study from Spain. The results of this review indicate that PCSK9 inhibitors in general are not cost effective at the current prices, but lower prices may change the results.

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 inhibitors vs. ezetimibe through LDL-C reductions in a Norwegian setting.

Aims: Despite the success of statins, there remains unmet clinical need in cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. New proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by 55-65%. Two PCSK9 inhibitors, evolocumab, and alirocumab, were approved for use in Norway but not yet for reimbursement through public national insurance. We aim to explore the cost-effectiveness of these compared with available treatments in a Norwegian setting. Methods and results: A state transition Markov model was developed to model the cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 inhibitors for prevention of coronary heart disease, ischaemic strokes, and death among high-risk patient subpopulations in Norway, in both primary and secondary settings. Evolocumab and alirocumab are compared against ezetimibe and standard treatment. Risk of CVD is based on population incidence rates and adjusted according to baseline risk factors. Preventative effect of treatment was modelled according to absolute reduction in LDL-C. PCSK9 inhibitors were never found to be cost-effective in primary prevention. In secondary prevention they were cost-effective only for older, high-risk patients. The lowest cost-effectiveness ratios were for heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia patients and high-risk diabetics, with €63 200 and €68 400 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively. Conclusion: High lifetime costs of PCSK9 inhibitors may not be offset by estimated health gains for most eligible patients. PCSK9 inhibitors are found in the model only to be cost-effective in secondary prevention for older patients with high absolute risk of CVD. This picture is likely to change as price decreases. Future research is needed to determine the long-term preventative effects of PCSK9 inhibitors.

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.

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

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

Ezetimibe: Use, costs, and adverse events in Australia.

AIM: To analyze the subsidized use and reported adverse events of ezetimibe, used to lower cholesterol, in Australia over the 11 years following its inclusion on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) in 2004. METHODS: Pharmacoepidemiological analysis of dispensed prescriptions from Medicare Australia. Adverse event data were obtained from the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Use was measured by the defined daily dose (DDD) per 1000 population per day for each calendar year. Adverse events were counted by organ class system. RESULTS: Total ezetimibe use rose to 8.46 DDD/1000 population/d in the 11 years to 2015. Ezetimibe as a sole active ingredient was the most commonly dispensed formulation followed by the two combination products containing ezetimibe and 40 mg or 80 mg simvastatin. The average yearly increase in utilization was 19% with a 24% annual increase in costs to government (2006-2015) to $169.0 million in 2015. There were substantial differences in ezetimibe use between states, with no relationship to deaths from ischaemic heart disease (IHD) in each jurisdiction. The major reported adverse events were musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders and gastrointestinal disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Ezetimibe use has increased rapidly in Australia since receiving public subsidy. Although the indications for subsidy are very restricted, there appears to have been widespread use, not explained by differential geographical IHD death rates. Latest guidelines still question the value of ezetimibe, so further discussion about whether the public spending on this medication for any potential improvement in population health outcomes is justified.

A study in high-risk, maximally pretreated patients to determine the potential use of PCSK9 inhibitors at various thresholds of total and LDL cholesterol levels.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: Statins and ezetimibe reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors lower LDL-c by 50%-70% and might be useful in refractory patients. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisal guidance (TAG) recommends use of these drugs in secondary prevention and familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) at differing LDL-c thresholds. We have estimated the proportion of patients in whom this third-line drug might be useful. STUDY DESIGN: We used data from a lipid-lowering audit programme to study 72 with FH and/or CVD of 271 patients referred over 12 months who failed to achieve target total cholesterol (TC) and LDL-c levels. All 72 patients were treated with ezetimibe, and 69 cases also received statins. We used LDL-c thresholds 1.5-5.5 mmol/L to estimate how many of these refractory patients could benefit from PCSK9 inhibitors. RESULTS: In 72 patients, TC and LDL-c targets were not met by 64 and 53 patients, respectively. We judged using the NICE TAG that only one patient (1.4% ezetimibe requiring and 0.4% total referrals) required a PCSK9 inhibitor. CONCLUSIONS: We determined that the proportion of patients eligible for a PCSK9 inhibitor at various TC and LDL-c levels is modest. This may reflect the use of all available statins in UK lipid clinics often at non-daily frequency. We suggest that cost-effective use of PCSK9 inhibitors requires prescribing being restricted to clinicians working in specialised lipid clinics.

Cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 Inhibitor Therapy in Patients With Heterozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia or Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.

IMPORTANCE: Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors were recently approved for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and have potential for broad ASCVD prevention. Their long-term cost-effectiveness and effect on total health care spending are uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 inhibitors and their potential effect on US health care spending. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model, a simulation model of US adults aged 35 to 94 years, was used to evaluate cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe in heterozygous FH or ASCVD. The model incorporated 2015 annual PCSK9 inhibitor costs of $14,350 (based on mean wholesale acquisition costs of evolocumab and alirocumab); adopted a health-system perspective, lifetime horizon; and included probabilistic sensitivity analyses to explore uncertainty. EXPOSURES: Statin therapy compared with addition of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Lifetime major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke), incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and total effect on US health care spending over 5 years. RESULTS: Adding PCSK9 inhibitors to statins in heterozygous FH was estimated to prevent 316,300 MACE at a cost of $503,000 per QALY gained compared with adding ezetimibe to statins (80% uncertainty interval [UI], $493,000-$1,737,000). In ASCVD, adding PCSK9 inhibitors to statins was estimated to prevent 4.3 million MACE compared with adding ezetimibe at $414,000 per QALY (80% UI, $277,000-$1,539,000). Reducing annual drug costs to $4536 per patient or less would be needed for PCSK9 inhibitors to be cost-effective at less than $100,000 per QALY. At 2015 prices, PCSK9 inhibitor use in all eligible patients was estimated to reduce cardiovascular care costs by $29 billion over 5 years, but drug costs increased by an estimated $592 billion (a 38% increase over 2015 prescription drug expenditures). In contrast, initiating statins in these high-risk populations in all statin-tolerant individuals who are not currently using statins was estimated to save $12 billion. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Assuming 2015 prices, PCSK9 inhibitor use in patients with heterozygous FH or ASCVD did not meet generally acceptable incremental cost-effectiveness thresholds and was estimated to increase US health care costs substantially. Reducing annual drug prices from more than $14,000 to $4536 would be necessary to meet a $100,000 per QALY threshold.

Cost-effectiveness of Simvastatin plus Ezetimibe for Cardiovascular Prevention in CKD: Results of the Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP).

BACKGROUND: Simvastatin, 20mg, plus ezetimibe, 10mg, daily (simvastatin plus ezetimibe) reduced major atherosclerotic events in patients with moderate to severe chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP), but its cost-effectiveness is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness of simvastatin plus ezetimibe in SHARP, a randomized controlled trial. SETTING & POPULATION: 9,270 patients with CKD randomly assigned to simvastatin plus ezetimibe versus placebo; participants in categories by 5-year cardiovascular risk (low, <10%; medium, 10%-<20%; or high, ≥20%) and CKD stage (3, 4, 5 not on dialysis, or on dialysis therapy). MODEL, PERSPECTIVE, & TIMELINE: Assessment during SHARP follow-up from the UK perspective; long-term projections. INTERVENTION: Simvastatin plus ezetimibe (2015 UK £1.19 per day) during 4.9 years' median follow-up in SHARP; scenario analyses with high-intensity statin regimens (2015 UK £0.05-£1.06 per day). OUTCOMES: Additional health care costs per major atherosclerotic event avoided and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: In SHARP, the proportional reductions per 1mmol/L of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol reduction with simvastatin plus ezetimibe in all major atherosclerotic events of 20% (95% CI, 6%-32%) and in the costs of vascular hospital episodes of 17% (95% CI, 4%-28%) were similar across participant categories by cardiovascular risk and CKD stage. The 5-year reduction in major atherosclerotic events per 1,000 participants ranged from 10 in low-risk to 58 in high-risk patients and from 28 in CKD stage 3 to 36 in patients on dialysis therapy. The net cost per major atherosclerotic event avoided with simvastatin plus ezetimibe compared to no LDL-lowering regimen ranged from £157,060 in patients at low risk to £15,230 in those at high risk (£30,500-£39,600 per QALY); and from £47,280 in CKD stage 3 to £28,180 in patients on dialysis therapy (£13,000-£43,300 per QALY). In scenario analyses, generic high-intensity statin regimens were estimated to yield similar benefits at substantially lower cost. LIMITATIONS: High-intensity statin-alone regimens were not studied in SHARP. CONCLUSIONS: Simvastatin plus ezetimibe prevented atherosclerotic events in SHARP, but other less costly statin regimens are likely to be more cost-effective for reducing cardiovascular risk in CKD.

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

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