Modeling the cost effectiveness and budgetary impact of Polypills for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in the United States.

BACKGROUND: There is underutilization of appropriate medications for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: Usual care (UC) was compared to polypill-based care with 3 versions using a validated micro-simulation model in the NHANES population with prior CVD. UC included individual prescription of up to 4 drug classes (antiplatelet agents, beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitors and statins). The polypills modeled were aspirin 81 mg, atenolol 50 mg, ramipril 5 mg, and either simvastatin 40 mg (Polypill I), atorvastatin 80 mg (Polypill II), or rosuvastatin 40 mg (Polypill III). Baseline medication use and adherence came from United Healthcare claims data. RESULTS: When compared to UC, there were annual reductions of 130,000 to 178,000 myocardial infarctions and 54,000 to 74,000 strokes using Polypill I and II, respectively. From a health sector perspective, in incremental analysis the ICERs for Polypill I and II were $20,073/QALY and $21,818/QALY respectively; Polypill III was dominated but had a similar cost-effectiveness ratio to Polypill II when compared directly to usual care. From a societal perspective, Polypill II was cost-saving and dominated all strategies. Over a 5-year period, those taking Polypill I and II compared to UC saved approximately $12 and $6 per-patient-per-year alive, respectively. Polypill II was the preferred strategy in 98% of runs at a willingness to pay of $50,000 in the probability sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a polypill has a favorable cost profile for secondary CVD prevention in the United States. Reductions in CVD-related healthcare costs outweighed medication cost increases on a per-patient-per-year basis, suggesting that a polypill would be economically advantageous to both patients and payers.

Fixed-dose vs free-dose combinations for the management of hypertension-An analysis of 81 958 patients.

Fixed-dose combinations (FDC) have been developed to reduce the pill burden for hypertensive patients. Data on fixed-dose or free-dose (freeDC) ramipril/amlodipine (R/A) or candesartan/amlodipine (C/A) combination treatment initiation were assessed. 71 463 patients were prescribed R/A and 10 495 C/A. For both R/A and C/A, FDC patients were younger (both P < .001) and less comorbid. Prior MI (OR: 0.61 and 0.60), prior stroke (OR: 0.68 and 0.70) and CHD (OR: 0.68 and 0.64) were negatively associated with FDC use, whereas hyperlipidemia was positively associated (OR: 1.26 and 1.19). Use of antihypertensive comedication (OR: 0.78; OR: 0.55) and treatment discontinuation within 12 months (HR: 0.65 and 0.82) were less likely in FDC patients, who also showed superior adherence (mean MPR; both P < .001). Cost of the combination was higher for FDCs (both P < .001). FDCs improve persistence and adherence, although they are more commonly prescribed in patients with less cardiovascular disease.

Usefulness of a Cardiovascular Polypill in the Treatment of Secondary Prevention Patients in Spain: A Cost-effectiveness Study.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To estimate the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of a polypill intervention (aspirin 100 mg, atorvastatin 20 mg, ramipril 10 mg) compared with multiple monotherapy for secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in adults with a history of myocardial infarction from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. METHODS: An adapted version of a recently published Markov model developed and validated in Microsoft Excel was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the polypill with that of its combined monocomponents over a 10-year time horizon. The population included in the model had a mean age of 64.7 years; most were male and had a history of myocardial infarction. The input parameters were obtained from a systematic literature review examining efficacy, adherence, utilities, and costs. The results of the model are expressed in events avoided, incremental costs, incremental life years, incremental quality-adjusted life years, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: Over a 10-year period, use of the cardiovascular polypill instead of its monocomponents simultaneously would avoid 46 nonfatal and 11 fatal cardiovascular events per 1000 patients treated. The polypill would also be a more effective and cheaper strategy. Probabilistic analysis of the base case found a 90.9% probability that the polypill would be a cost-effective strategy compared with multiple monotherapy at a willingness-to-pay of 30 000 euros per quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSIONS: The polypill would be a cost-effective strategy for the Spanish National Health System with potential clinical benefits.

A 'polypill' aimed at preventing cardiovascular disease could prove highly cost-effective for use in Latin America.

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of administering a daily "polypill" consisting of three antihypertensive drugs, a statin, and aspirin to prevent cardiovascular disease among high-risk patients in Latin America. We found that the lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease could be reduced by 15 percent in women and by 21 percent in men if the polypill were used by people with a risk of cardiovascular disease equal to or greater than 15 percent over ten years. Attaining this goal would require treating 26 percent of the population at a cost of $34-$36 per quality-adjusted life-year. Offering the polypill to women at high risk and to men age fifty-five or older would be the best approach and would yield acceptable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. The polypill would be very cost-effective even in the country with the lowest gross national income in our study. However, policy makers must weigh the value of intervention with the polypill against other interventions, as well as their country's willingness and ability to pay for the intervention.

The cost implications of the use of telmisartan or ramipril in patients at high risk for vascular events: the ONTARGET study.

BACKGROUND: The recently published ONTARGET trial found that telmisartan was non-inferior to ramipril in reducing CV death, MI, stroke, or heart failure in patients with vascular disease or high-risk diabetes. The cost implications of ramipril and telmisartan monotherapy use based on the ONTARGET study are reported here. METHODS AND RESULTS: Only healthcare system costs were considered. Healthcare resource utilization was collected for each patient during the trial. The authors obtained country-specific unit costs to the different healthcare care resources consumed (i.e., hospitalizations events, procedures, non-study, and study drugs) for all enrolled patients. Purchasing power parities were used to convert country-specific costs into US dollars (US$ 2008). The total undiscounted costs of the study for the telmisartan group was $12,762 per patient and is higher than the ramipril group at $12,007 per patient, an un-discounted difference of $755 (95% confidence interval [CI], $218-$1292); The discounted costs for the telmisartan group was $11,722 compared with $11,019 for the ramipril group; a difference of $703 (95% CI, $209-$1197). The difference in costs is exclusively related to the acquisition cost of telmisartan over generic ramipril. LIMITATIONS: This analysis only considered direct healthcare system costs. Costs accrued outside the hospital were not collected. Combination therapy was excluded since it would likely be more expensive than ramipril alone, with no additional benefit and a risk of some harm. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, it is suggested that for the ONTARGET patients, the use of telmisartan instead of ramipril increases costs by 6.3%. These findings suggest that the choice to put patients on telmisartan should be justified based on the patient?s susceptibility to specific adverse events to minimize the cost implications.

Telmisartan for the management of patients at high cardiovascular risk.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) places a significant burden on healthcare providers. High blood pressure (BP) is the single most prevalent risk factor for CVD worldwide and is responsible for more deaths than any other risk factor. 'Cardiovascular (CV) high-risk patients' make up the broad cross-section of patients in the middle of the risk spectrum for CVD progression that is referred to as the CV continuum and includes those with atherothrombotic disease, those with target organ damage associated with type 2 diabetes and those with multiple risk factors. Angiotensin II is involved in CVD progression at every stage of the CV continuum, making the renin-angiotensin system a rational target for pharmacologic intervention. Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) offer a better tolerated alternative to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, with greater long-term adherence. The ARB telmisartan recently received an indication for CV prevention. SCOPE: A PubMed literature search was conducted to identify evidence on the use of telmisartan for preventing CV events. FINDINGS: Telmisartan has a favourable safety and tolerability profile, and has demonstrated efficacious and long-lasting 24-hour BP reductions, whether as monotherapy or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide or amlodipine. In the largest CV prevention trial program undertaken with an ARB (the ONgoing Telmisartan Alone and in combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial; ONTARGET), telmisartan 80 mg/day alone was as effective as ramipril in reducing the composite primary endpoint of CV mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and hospitalization for heart failure in CV high-risk patients. However, patients were significantly more likely to adhere to treatment with telmisartan than ramipril due to its better tolerability. CONCLUSION: To date, telmisartan is the only ARB indicated to reduce CV morbidity in a broad CV high-risk population.

Determining the cost-effectiveness of preventing cardiovascular disease: are estimates calculated over the duration of a clinical trial adequate?

BACKGROUND: Economic analyses of randomized clinical trials often focus only on the results that are observed during the study. However, for many preventive interventions, associated costs and benefits will accrue over a patient's remaining lifetime. To determine the importance of the chosen time horizon, the cost-effectiveness (C/E) of ramipril therapy was calculated and compared in the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE), the Microalbuminuria, Cardiovascular, and Renal Outcomes in HOPE (MICRO-HOPE) and the Acute Infarction Ramipril Efficacy (AIRE) study versus the entire life expectancy (L/E) of potential patients. METHODS: The Cardiovascular Disease Life Expectancy model, a validated Markov model, was calibrated to accurately forecast the results of each trial. These results were then extrapolated over the remaining L/E of hypothetical patients 55 to 75 years of age. The predicted change in L/E and associated direct health care costs for Canadians were calculated and discounted 3% annually. RESULTS: In HOPE, the forecasted increased L/E averaged 0.06 years during the five-year study versus 1.3 years over the remaining years of L/E. The associated C/E of ramipril was $15,000 per year of life saved (YOLS) over the study duration and $8,500/YOLS over the remaining lifetime. For hypothetical patients, the C/E of ramipril over 4.5 years ranged from $6,700/YOLS to more than $58,300/YOLS and was lowest among elderly men. When the remaining L/E was considered, the C/E of ramipril was similar for men and women of all ages, ranging from $8,100/YOLS to $10,200/YOLS. The analyses of MICRO-HOPE and AIRE provided similar results. CONCLUSION: The estimated efficacy and associated C/E of ramipril in HOPE, MICRO-HOPE and the AIRE study is extremely sensitive to the selected time horizon. Economic analyses beyond the duration of randomized clinical trials are required to fully evaluate the potential costs and benefits of long-term preventive therapies.

Estimating the cost effectiveness of ramipril used for specific clinical indications: comparing the outcomes in four clinical trials with a common economic model.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Economic analyses of drug therapies are highly dependent on the clinical indications for treatment. The cost effectiveness of ramipril has been evaluated in numerous studies, usually based on the results of one specific clinical trial. We estimated the cost effectiveness of this drug across a range of currently accepted therapeutic indications, using a single health economic model and adjusted for quality of life, to compare the different outcomes observed in four clinical trials. METHODS: The cardiovascular life expectancy model, a validated Markov model, was calibrated to accurately forecast the results of four trials including AIRE, HOPE, Micro-HOPE, and REIN. We then extrapolated these results over the remaining life expectancy of the patients enrolled in each study and adjusted for the quality of life associated with the observed outcomes. The cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was then calculated from the perspective of the Canadian healthcare system incorporating the estimated direct healthcare costs associated with treatments and outcomes. RESULTS: After discounting all costs and outcomes 3% annually, the benefits associated with ramipril ranged from 0.74 QALYs in the AIRE study to 1.22 QALYs in Micro-HOPE. Treatment was estimated to be cost-saving for some patient groups, such as those in REIN. The highest cost-effectiveness ratio was observed among individuals enrolled in HOPE ($Can20 000 per QALY in 2002). CONCLUSION: Treatment with ramipril appears to be economically attractive across a wide range of patient groups, including those with increased coronary risk and/or diabetes mellitus (HOPE and Micro-HOPE), those with congestive heart failure (AIRE), and those with non-diabetic nephropathy (REIN).

Clinical decision making and the expected value of information.

BACKGROUND: The results of the HOPE study, a randomized clinical trial, provide strong evidence that 1) ramipril prevents the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke in patients who are at high risk of a cardiovascular event and 2) ramipril is cost-effective at a threshold willingness-to-pay of $10,000 to prevent an event of the composite outcome. In this report the concept of the expected value of information is used to determine if the information provided by the HOPE study is sufficient for decision making in the US and Canada. METHODS: and results Using the cost-effectiveness data from a clinical trial, or from a meta-analysis of several trials, one can determine, based on the number of future patients that would benefit from the health technology under investigation, the expected value of sample information (EVSI) of a future trial as a function of proposed sample size. If the EVSI exceeds the cost for any particular sample size then the current information is insufficient for decision making and a future trial is indicated. If, on the other hand, there is no sample size for which the EVSI exceeds the cost, then there is sufficient information for decision making and no future trial is required. Using the data from the HOPE study these concepts are applied for various assumptions regarding the fixed and variable cost of a future trial and the number of patients who would benefit from ramipril. CONCLUSIONS: Expected value of information methods provide a decision-analytic alternative to the standard likelihood methods for assessing the evidence provided by cost-effectiveness data from randomized clinical trials.

Cost-effectiveness in Italy of preventive treatment with ramipril in patients at high risk of cardiovascular events.

OBJECTIVES: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted in Italy of preventive treatment with ramipril (an angiotensin converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitor) compared to no treatment in patients at high risk of cardiovascular death. The analysis was based on data extracted from the HOPE trial. METHODS: The current life table method was used in order to model a lifetime time horizon for outcomes and costs. The cohorts used were 1000 subjects on ramipril, and 1000 subjects on placebo enrolled in the HOPE trial. Kaplan-Meier curves at 5 years of the clinical study were fitted using an exponential model over a lifetime horizon, the outcome variables being myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization and death. Total direct medical costs have been considered from a third-party payer's perspective--the Italian National Health Service. Resources involved in each event/activity were estimated using the modified Delphi technique with a panel of six clinicians. Types of resources reported included drug therapies, laboratory and imaging tests, physician visits, outpatient and inpatient rehabilitation, as well as medical and surgical hospital admissions. The incremental cost per life year gained was the main measure of the analysis. RESULTS: ICER (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) decreases with the length of the treatment period. After the first year the ICER is 55,062 euros and subsequently decreases to about 12,770 euros at 5 years, 5945 euros at 10 years and 3726 euros at 20 years. The two ways sensitivity analysis showed that at 5 years ICERs range from a saving of 4059 euros to a cost of 22,929 euros (at 20 years they are 1814 euros and 4434 euros), mainly depending on the cost of drug and cost of events. Previous analyses in other countries based on the HOPE study obtained ICER values which are comparable with our results, when taking into account the different cost structure of the health care systems. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of these results, the use of ramipril is likely to represent an efficient use of public health expenditure in the Italian healthcare system.

Cost effectiveness of ramipril in patients at high risk for cardiovascular events : economic evaluation of the HOPE (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation) study for Germany from the Statutory Health Insurance perspective.

BACKGROUND: In the HOPE (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation) trial, ramipril (compared with placebo) significantly reduced cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality as well as the incidence of costly cardiovascular events, such as myocardial infarction, revascularisation, stroke, cardiac arrest, hospitalisation due to heart failure and worsening angina pectoris, new-onset diabetes mellitus and microvascular diabetic complications. OBJECTIVE: Data from the HOPE study were used in a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine the additional cost per life-year gained (LYG) when the ACE inhibitor ramipril was added to the current medication of patients at high risk for cardiovascular events. The aim was to establish the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ramipril versus placebo from the perspective of the Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) provider in Germany, for both the study population as a whole and for the subgroup of patients with diabetes. DESIGN: A modelling approach was used, based on secondary analysis of published data and retrospective application of costs. In the base-case analysis, average case-related expenses of the SHI were applied and LYG were quantified using the average of the difference between the survival rates in the ramipril and placebo groups during the HOPE trial. LYG beyond the trial duration were estimated by the method of declining exponential approximation of life expectancy. RESULTS: After a treatment period of 4.5 years, the ICER of ramipril versus placebo was Euros 4074/LYG and Euros 2486/LYG (discounted at 5% per annum and in 1998-2002 values; Euro 1 approximately USD 0.88; first quarter 2002 values) for the HOPE study population as a whole and the subgroup of patients with diabetes, respectively. To test the model's robustness, the influence of the model variables on the results was quantified using a deterministic model, and a best-case/worst-case scenario analysis. The effect of random variables was investigated in a Monte Carlo simulation. The acquisition cost for ramipril had the greatest impact on the ICER of ramipril (2.2-fold greater than the impact of the number of LYG). In 95% of the 10,000 simulation steps, the ICER of ramipril after 4.5 years of treatment was between Euros 1290 and Euros 9005 per LYG for the entire HOPE study population and between Euros 290 and Euros 6115 per LYG in the diabetic subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this evaluation suggest that ramipril is likely to be cost effective in secondary prevention of cardiovascular events from the perspective of the SHI (third-party payer) in Germany. The estimated ICER of ramipril compares well with other ICERs of widely accepted treatments used for the management of cardiovascular diseases, such as HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors.

Cost-effectiveness of ramipril in patients at high risk for cardiovascular events: a Swiss perspective.

BACKGROUND: Ramipril may prevent cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and stroke in patients without evidence of left ventricular dysfunction or heart failure who are at high risk for cardiovascular events. In the present study we assessed the cost-effectiveness of ramipril in patients with an increased risk of cardiovascular events from a third party payer's perspective in Switzerland. In addition, the cost-effectiveness of ramipril in the subgroup of diabetic patients was assessed. METHODS: We developed a decision analytic cost-effectiveness model to estimate the incremental costs (in 2001 in Swiss Francs [CHF]), incremental effects (in terms of life-years gained [LYG]) and incremental cost-effectiveness (CHF per LYG) of ramipril versus placebo. Clinical input parameters were derived from the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) study. Cost data were extracted from the literature. Deterministic sensitivity analysis was used to assess the impact of varying the input parameters on the cost effectiveness of the intervention. In addition, first order Monte Carlo simulation was used to capture patient-to-patient variability, presented as cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ramipril versus placebo was CHF 6,005 per life-year gained in the base case analysis. In diabetic patients the cost-effectiveness ratio was CHF 3,790 per life-year gained. Varying the price of ramipril in a deterministic sensitivity analysis only had a moderate impact on the cost-effectiveness ratio in the overall population (range: CHF 3,652-15,418 per LYG) as well as in diabetic patients (range: CHF 2,370-9,468 per LYG). CONCLUSION: Ramipril in patients at high risk for cardiovascular events represents an efficient use of scarce health care resources in Switzerland and is cost-effective under reasonable assumptions. Ramipril is even more cost-effective in the subgroup of diabetic patients.

Clinical and economic benefits of ramipril: an Australian analysis of the HOPE study.

BACKGROUND: The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) study has demonstrated that ramipril 10 mg/day for 5 years in an at-risk population results in clinically and statistically significant reductions in the occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and revascularization procedures. The likely impact of the intervention in Australia, in terms of the number of potential events avoided and the cost per life-year saved, has previously not been determined. AIMS: To assess the clinical and economic impacts of the use of daily ramipril in the Australian at-risk population from the perspective of the public health-care budget. METHODS: The clinical benefits were calculated from endpoints used in the trial, which were converted to the 'number needed to treat'. These were then applied to the at-risk population, which was determined nationally from the relevant Australian statistics. The result of this calculation is the potential number of events avoided in Australia. The economic benefits were established by undertaking an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. The economic model considered the clinical benefits and the costs (and cost offsets) arising from ramipril 10 mg/day therapy for 5 years. Life-years saved was determined by calculating the difference in total years survived between the ramipril and control arms of the study. Net costs divided by life-years saved is the cost per life-year saved, and this is reported in Australian dollars as the incremental cost effectiveness. RESULTS: The clinical benefits over a 5-year period were expressed as the number of potential events avoided and comprised approximately: 9188 strokes; 14 658 MI; 14 317 revascularization procedures; and 12,534 cardiovascular-related deaths, nationally. The incremental cost-effectiveness analysis showed the estimated cost per life-year saved to be 17,214 Australia dollars. CONCLUSION: The use of ramipril 10 mg/day over a 5-year period in the at-risk Australian population could prevent many thousands of cardiovascular events, including 12,534 cardiovascular-related deaths. The cost per life-year saved compares favourably to other health care interventions.

Assessment of the effect of ramipril therapy on direct health care costs for first and recurrent strokes in high-risk cardiovascular patients using data from the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) study.

BACKGROUND: In the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) Study, the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor ramipril was shown to significantly reduce the relative risk of stroke by 32% in high-risk cardiovascular patients (P < 0.001). However, the study did not examine the economic implications of these findings. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this economic analysis was to estimate the potential economic benefits of the differences in direct health care costs attributable to the prevention of first and recurrent strokes in the HOPE Study patient population through the use of ramipril. METHODS: The epidemiologic component of the model examined the incidence of first and recurrent strokes in the HOPE Study population, assessed at annual increments, for the years 1995 through 1997. An economic decision model was constructed by the application of costs to the epidemiologic foundation. Direct costs for stroke hospitalization and follow-up were calculated based on estimates provided by Samsa et al (1999). The estimated cost of ramipril treatment was based on the average wholesale price for the corresponding year of the analysis. The Samsa index costs are given in 1991 US $; they were converted to study-year US $ using the Consumer Price Index for the corresponding year. RESULTS: The mean age of the patient population was 69 years, with >70% of patients aged >/=65 years. When ACE-inhibitor treatment costs were included in the calculation of treatment costs, the expense to avert 1 stroke was estimated at $13,766 for years 1 to 2 after randomization and $12,281 for years 2 to 3. By years 3 to 4, ramipril treatment resulted in 21 fewer strokes and produced an estimated savings of $52,861. CONCLUSION: Ramipril 10 mg/d was a cost-effective means of preventing first and recurrent ischemic strokes in the HOPE Study patient population.

HOPE study impact on ACE inhibitors use.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are used to treat cardiovascular diseases, major causes of death in Canada. The HOPE (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation) study showed that ramipril benefits patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease. We analyzed ACE inhibitor use and costs in Canada before and after publication of HOPE. METHODS: We obtained pharmacy and hospital sales data for 1985-2001 from IMS Canada for all ACE inhibitors (Anatomical Therapeutic Category code C09A0) and for the 3 largest provinces (i.e., British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario). Prescription numbers, total costs, cost/prescription, and market share of individual ACE inhibitors were plotted over time and analyzed using regression. Canadian dollars were used to report costs. RESULTS: We examined 10 drugs; captopril was the first, introduced in 1985. Overall, prescriptions increased consistently from 356 000 in 1985 to 11.5 million in 2001, representing an annual increase of 660 000 (y = 661 410x-510 360; r(2) = 0.99). Total costs increased linearly from 1985 (14.5 million US dollars) to 2001 (513 million US dollars): Y = 29.3.10(6)x - 29.9.10(6); r(2) = 0.99. Provincial utilization patterns were also similar. Ramipril's national use increased dramatically from 1999 (822 000 prescriptions, 9.2% of all ACE inhibitors) to 2001 (3.8 million, 32.8% of all ACE inhibitors). National costs for ramipril increased exponentially (y = 1.08e(0.6248x)) to a total of 157 million US dollars in 2001, with the 3 major provinces accounting for 78.9%. Costs per prescription followed no observable trend (range 39.45-46.20 US dollars). CONCLUSIONS: The number of prescriptions and the total cost of ACE inhibitors increased over the period studied. Ramipril use increased in concert with publication of the HOPE trial, while the growth rates of other ACE inhibitors remained constant.

Economic impact of ramipril on hospitalization of high-risk cardiovascular patients.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate differences in direct costs attributable to avoided hospitalizations and procedures during the years of the HOPE (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation) study after the cost of treatment with ramipril or alternative angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy was taken into account. METHODS: A decision analytical model was developed to estimate the economic impact of reductions in hospitalizations and/or procedures both at annual increments and over the first 4 years of the HOPE study. The analysis compared the number of cardiovascular events per endpoint per year in the intervention and placebo group with hospitalization and procedural costs. Cost data were derived from the literature and inflated to the appropriate index year using the consumer price index. RESULTS: For approximately 9000 patients studied, the gross estimated savings in direct costs for 297 events avoided were more than $5 million over 4 years. After the cost of treatment was deducted for both groups, the net estimated savings were $871 000 over 4 years. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that the use of ramipril provides cost-effective treatment for high-risk cardiovascular patients with an ejection fraction >40%.