The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of statins in low-risk patients.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gupta AK
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3216454 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of statins in low-risk patients.
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 20111024 16
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAlthough statins have been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients at low cardiovascular risk, their absolute benefit is small in the short term, which may adversely affect cost-effectiveness. We sought to determine the long-term cost-effectiveness (beyond the duration of clinical trials) of low- and high-potency statins in patients at low cardiovascular risk and to estimate the impact on Canada's publicly funded health care system.MethodsUsing Markov modelling, we performed a cost-utility analysis in which we compared low-potency statins (fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin and simvastatin) and high-potency statins (atorvastatin and rosuvastatin) with no statins in a simulated cohort of low-risk patients over a lifetime horizon. Model outcomes included costs (in 2010 Canadian dollars), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and the cost per QALY gained.ResultsOver a lifetime horizon, the cost of managing a patient at low cardiovascular risk was estimated to be about $10,100 without statins, $15,200 with low-potency statins and $16,400 with high-potency statins. The cost per QALY gained with high-potency statins (v. no statins) was $21 300; the use of low-potency statins was not considered economically attractive. These results were robust to sensitivity analyses, although their use became economically unattractive when the duration of benefit from statin use was assumed to be less than 10 years.InterpretationUse of high-potency statins in patients at low cardiovascular risk was associated with a cost per QALY gained that was economically attractive by current standards, assuming that the benefit from statin use would continue for at least 10 years. However, the overall expenditure on statins would be substantial, and the ramifications of this practice should be carefully considered by policy-makers.
| S-EPMC3216439 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Individual and group cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality by reducing recurrent events, improving risk factors, aiding compliance with drug treatment, and improving quality of life through physical activity and education. Home-based programs are equally effective in improving exercise capacity, risk factors, mortality, and health-related quality of life outcomes compared to hospital-based intervention. Cardio-telerehabilitation (CTR) programs are a supplement or an alternative to hospital rehabilitation programs providing similar benefits to usual hospital and home care. Despite this statement, implementation in the public and private healthcare environment is still scarce and limited. The main objective of this research was to evaluate the efficacy, feasibility, and adherence of a personalized eight-week mHealth telerehabilitation program in low-risk cardiac patients in the hospital of Melilla (Spain). The secondary aims were to investigate patient satisfaction, identify barriers of implementation and adverse events, and assess cost-effectiveness from a health system perspective. A study protocol for a single center prospective controlled trial was conducted at the Regional Hospital of Melilla (Spain), with a sample size of (n = 30) patients with a diagnosis of low-risk CVD with class I heart failure according to NYHA (New York Heart Association). Outcomes of this study, will add new evidence that could support the use of CTR in cardiac patients clinical guidelines.
| S-EPMC8069438 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCholesterol guidelines typically prioritize primary prevention statin therapy on the basis of 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease. The advent of generic pricing may justify expansion of statin eligibility. Moreover, 10-year risk may not be the optimal approach for statin prioritization. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of expanding preventive statin eligibility and evaluated novel approaches to prioritization from a Scottish health sector perspective.MethodsA computer simulation model predicted long-term health and cost outcomes in Scottish adults ≥40 years of age. Epidemiologic analysis was completed using the Scottish Heart Health Extended Cohort, Scottish Morbidity Records, and National Records of Scotland. A simulation cohort was constructed with data from the Scottish Health Survey 2011 and contemporary population estimates. Treatment and cost inputs were derived from published literature and health service cost data. The main outcome measure was the lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, evaluated as cost (2020 GBP) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Three approaches to statin prioritization were analyzed: 10-year risk scoring using the ASSIGN score, age-stratified risk thresholds to increase treatment rates in younger individuals, and absolute risk reduction (ARR)-guided therapy to increase treatment rates in individuals with elevated cholesterol levels. For each approach, 2 policies were considered: treating the same number of individuals as those with an ASSIGN score ≥20% (age-stratified risk threshold 20, ARR 20) and treating the same number of individuals as those with an ASSIGN score ≥10% (age-stratified risk threshold 10, ARR 10).ResultsCompared with an ASSIGN score ≥20%, reducing the risk threshold for statin initiation to 10% expanded eligibility from 804 000 (32% of adults ≥40 years of age without CVD) to 1 445 500 individuals (58%). This policy would be cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, £12 300/QALY [95% CI, £7690/QALY-£26 500/QALY]). Incremental to an ASSIGN score ≥20%, ARR 20 produced ≈8800 QALYs and was cost-effective (£7050/QALY [95% CI, £4560/QALY-£10 700/QALY]). Incremental to an ASSIGN score ≥10%, ARR 10 produced ≈7950 QALYs and was cost-effective (£11 700/QALY [95% CI, £9250/QALY-£16 900/QALY]). Both age-stratified risk threshold strategies were dominated (ie, more expensive and less effective than alternative treatment strategies).ConclusionsGeneric pricing has rendered preventive statin therapy cost-effective for many adults. ARR-guided therapy is more effective than 10-year risk scoring and is cost-effective.
| S-EPMC9022692 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStatins were initially used to improve cardiovascular outcomes in people with established coronary artery disease, but recently their use has become more common in people at low cardiovascular risk. We did a systematic review of randomized trials to assess the efficacy and harms of statins in these individuals.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (to Jan. 28, 2011), registries of health technology assessments and clinical trials, and reference lists of relevant reviews. We included trials that randomly assigned participants at low cardiovascular risk to receive a statin versus a placebo or no statin. We defined low risk as an observed 10-year risk of less than 20% for cardiovascular-related death or nonfatal myocardial infarction, but we explored other definitions in sensitivity analyses.ResultsWe identified 29 eligible trials involving a total of 80,711 participants. All-cause mortality was significantly lower among patients receiving a statin than among controls (relative risk [RR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-0.97) for trials with a 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease < 20% [primary analysis] and 0.83, 95% CI 0.73-0.94, for trials with 10-year risk < 10% [sensitivity analysis]). Patients in the statin group were also significantly less likely than controls to have nonfatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49-0.84) and nonfatal stroke (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.96). Neither metaregression nor stratified analyses suggested statistically significant differences in efficacy between high-and low-potency statins, or larger reductions in cholesterol.InterpretationStatins were found to be efficacious in preventing death and cardiovascular morbidity in people at low cardiovascular risk. Reductions in relative risk were similar to those seen in patients with a history of coronary artery disease.
| S-EPMC3216447 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A validated prediction model estimates the absolute benefit of intensive versus standard lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) with statins on next major cardiovascular events for individual patients with coronary artery disease. We aimed to assess whether targeting intensive LLT therapy to coronary artery disease patients with the highest predicted absolute benefit is cost-effective compared to treating all with standard or all with intensive LLT.A lifetime Markov model was constructed for coronary artery disease patients (n=10 000) with mean age 61 years. Number of major cardiovascular events, (non) vascular death, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated for the following strategies: (1) standard LLT for all (reference strategy); (2) intensive LLT for those with 5-year absolute major cardiovascular events risk reduction (ARR) ≥3%, ≥2.3%, or ≥1.5% (corresponding to ≥20%, ≥15%, or ≥10% 5-year major cardiovascular events risk); and (3) intensive LLT for all. With intensive LLT for those with ≥3% 5-year ARR (13% of patients), 380 QALYs were gained for €2423/QALY. Using a threshold of ≥2.3% ARR (26% of patients), 630 QALYs were gained for €5653/QALY. Using a threshold of ≥1.5% ARR (56% of patients), 1020 QALYs were gained for €10 960/QALY. By treating all intensively, 1410 QALYs were gained (0.14 QALY per patient) for €17 223/QALY. With benefit-based treatment, 0.16 to 0.17 QALY was gained per treated patient.Intensive LLT with statins for all coronary artery disease patients results in the highest overall QALY gain against acceptable costs. However, the number of QALYs gained with intensive LLT by statins in individual patients can be increased with selective benefit-based treatment.URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT00327691 and NCT00159835.
| S-EPMC5523762 | biostudies-other
Project description:The authors sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of statins for primary prevention of myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).Patients with CKD have an elevated risk of MI and stroke. Although HMG Co-A reductase inhibitors (“statins”) may prevent cardiovascular events in patients with non–dialysis-requiring CKD, adverse drug effects and competing risks could materially influence net effects and clinical decision-making.We developed a decision-analytic model of CKD and cardiovascular disease (CVD) to determine the cost-effectiveness of low-cost generic statins for primary CVD prevention in men and women with hypertension and mild-to-moderate CKD. Outcomes included MI and stroke rates, discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and lifetime costs (2010 USD), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.For 65-year-old men with moderate hypertension and mild-to-moderate CKD, statins reduced the combined rate of MI and stroke, yielded 0.10 QALYs, and increased costs by $1,800 ($18,000 per QALY gained). For patients with lower baseline cardiovascular risks, health and economic benefits were smaller; for 65-year-old women, statins yielded 0.06 QALYs and increased costs by $1,900 ($33,400 per QALY gained). Results were sensitive to rates of rhabdomyolysis and drug costs. Statins are less cost-effective when obtained at average retail prices, particularly in patients at lower CVD risk.Although statins reduce absolute CVD risk in patients with CKD, the increased risk of rhabdomyolysis, and competing risks associated with progressive CKD, partly offset these gains. Low-cost generic statins appear cost-effective for primary prevention of CVD in patients with mild-to-moderate CKD and hypertension.
| S-EPMC3688058 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAmerican College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines prioritize primary prevention statin therapy based on 10-year absolute risk (AR10) of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, given the same AR10, patients with higher levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) experience greater absolute risk reduction from statin therapy.ObjectivesTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of expanding preventive statin treatment eligibility from standard care to patients at borderline risk (AR10, 5.0%-7.4%) for ASCVD and with high levels of LDL-C and to estimate cost-effectiveness of statin treatment across ranges of age, sex, AR10, and LDL-C levels.Design, setting, and participantsThis study evaluated 100 simulated cohorts, each including 1 million ASCVD-free survey respondents (50% men and 50% women) aged 40 years at baseline. Cohorts were created by probabilistic sampling of the 1999-2014 US National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from the perspective of the US health care sector. The CVD Policy Model microsimulation version projected lifetime health and cost outcomes. Probability of first-ever coronary heart disease or stroke event was estimated by analysis of 6 pooled US cohort studies and recalibrated to match contemporary event rates. Other model variables were derived from national surveys, meta-analyses, and published literature. Data were analyzed from May 15, 2018, through June 10, 2019.ExposuresFour statin treatment strategies were compared: (1) treat all patients with AR10 of at least 7.5%, diabetes, or LDL-C of at least 190 mg/dL (standard care); (2) add treatment for borderline risk and LDL-C levels of 160 to 189 mg/dL; (3) add treatment for borderline risk and LDL-C levels of 130 to 159 mg/dL; and (4) add treatment for remainder of patients with AR10 of at least 5.0%. Statin treatment was also compared with no statin treatment in age, sex, AR10, and LDL-C strata.Main outcomes and measuresLifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs (2019 US dollars) were projected and discounted 3.0% annually. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.ResultsIn these 100 simulated cohorts, each with 1 million patients aged 40 years at baseline (50% women and 50% men), adding preventive statins to individuals with borderline AR10 and LDL-C levels of 160 to 189 mg/dL would be cost-saving; further treating borderline AR10 and LDL-C levels of 130 to 159 mg/dL would also be cost-saving; and treating all individuals with AR10 of at least 5.0% would be highly cost-effective ($33 558/QALY) and would prevent the most ASCVD events. Within age, AR10, and sex categories, individuals with higher baseline LDL-C levels gained more QALYs from statin therapy. Cost-effectiveness increased with LDL-C level and AR10.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, lifetime statin treatment of patients in a hypothetical cohort with borderline ASCVD risk and LDL-C levels of 160 to 189 mg/dL was found to be cost-saving. Results suggest that treating all patients at borderline risk regardless of LDL-C level would likely be highly cost-effective.
| S-EPMC6714024 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceBoth noninvasive anatomic and functional testing strategies are now routinely used as initial workup in patients with low-risk stable chest pain (SCP).ObjectiveTo determine whether anatomic approaches (ie, coronary computed tomography angiography [CTA] and coronary CTA supplemented with noninvasive fractional flow reserve [FFRCT], performed in patients with 30% to 69% stenosis) are cost-effective compared with functional testing for the assessment of low-risk SCP.Design, setting, and participantsThis cost-effectiveness analysis used an individual-based Markov microsimulation model for low-risk SCP. The model was developed using patient data from the Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain (PROMISE) trial. The model was validated by comparing model outcomes with outcomes observed in the PROMISE trial for anatomic (coronary CTA) and functional (stress testing) strategies, including diagnostic test results, referral to invasive coronary angiography (ICA), coronary revascularization, incident major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), and costs during 60 days and 2 years. The validated model was used to determine whether anatomic approaches are cost-effective over a lifetime compared with functional testing.ExposureChoice of index test for evaluation of low-risk SCP.Main outcomes and measuresDownstream ICA and coronary revascularization, MACE (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction), cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of competing strategies.ResultsThe model cohort included 10 003 individual patients (median [interquartile range] age, 60.0 [54.4-65.9] years; 5270 [52.7%] women; 7693 [77.4%] White individuals), who entered the model 100 times. The Markov model accurately estimated the test assignment, results of anatomic and functional index testing, referral to ICA, revascularization, MACE, and costs at 60 days and 2 years compared with observed data in PROMISE (eg, coronary CTA: ICA, 12.2% [95% CI, 10.9%-13.5%] vs 12.3% [95% CI, 12.2%-12.4%]; revascularization, 6.2% [95% CI, 5.5%-6.9%] vs 6.4% [95% CI, 6.3%-6.5%]; functional strategy: ICA, 8.1% [95% CI, 7.4%-8.9%] vs 8.2% [95% CI, 8.1%-8.3%]; revascularization, 3.2% [95% CI, 2.7%-3.7%] vs 3.3% [95% CI, 3.2%-3.4%]; 2-year MACE rates: coronary CTA, 2.1% [95% CI, 1.7%-2.5%] vs 2.3% [95% CI, 2.2%-2.4%]; functional strategy, 2.2% [95% CI, 1.8%-2.6%] vs 2.4% [95% CI, 2.3%-2.4%]). Anatomic approaches led to higher ICA and revascularization rates at 60 days, 2 years, and 5 years compared with functional testing but were more effective in patient selection for ICA (eg, 60-day revascularization-to-ICA ratio, CTA: 53.7% [95% CI, 53.3%-54.0%]; CTA with FFRCT: 59.5% [95% CI, 59.2%-59.8%]; functional testing: 40.7% [95% CI, 40.4%-50.0%]). Over a lifetime, anatomic approaches gained an additional 6 months in perfect health compared with functional testing (CTA, 25.16 [95% CI, 25.14-25.19] QALYs; CTA with FFRCT, 25.14 [95% CI, 25.12-25.17] QALYs; functional testing, 24.68 [95% CI, 24.66-24.70] QALYs). Anatomic strategies were less costly and more effective; thus, CTA with FFRCT dominated and CTA alone was cost-effective (ICERs ranged from $1912/QALY for women and $3,559/QALY for men) compared with functional testing. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, anatomic approaches were cost-effective in more than 65% of scenarios, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this study suggest that anatomic strategies may present a more favorable initial diagnostic option in the evaluation of low-risk SCP compared with functional testing.
| S-EPMC7737090 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe addition of procarbazine, lomustine, vincristine (PCV) chemotherapy to radiotherapy (RT) for patients with high-risk (≥40 y old or subtotally resected) low-grade glioma (LGG) results in an absolute median survival benefit of over 5 years. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of this treatment strategy.MethodsA decision tree with an integrated 3-state Markov model was created to follow patients with high-risk LGG after surgery treated with RT versus RT+PCV. Patients existed in one of 3 health states: stable, progressive, or dead. Survival and freedom from progression were modeled to reflect the results of RTOG 9802 using time-dependent transition probabilities. Health utility values and costs of care were derived from the literature and national registry databases. Analysis was conducted from the health care perspective. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis explored uncertainty in model parameters.ResultsModeled outcomes demonstrated agreement with clinical data in expected benefit of addition of PCV to RT. The addition of PCV to RT yielded an incremental benefit of 4.77 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (9.94 for RT+PCV vs 5.17 for RT alone) at an incremental cost of $48635 ($188234 for RT+PCV vs $139598 for RT alone), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $10186 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrates that within modeled distributions of parameters, RT+PCV has 99.96% probability of being cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100000 per QALY.ConclusionThe addition of PCV to RT is a cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with high-risk LGG.
| S-EPMC5716167 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC6595178 | biostudies-literature