Dataset Information

When are statins cost-effective in cardiovascular prevention? A systematic review of sponsorship bias and conclusions in economic evaluations of statins.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We examined sponsorship of published cost-effectiveness analyses of statin use for cardiovascular (CV) prevention, and determined whether the funding source is associated with study conclusions.

Methods and findings

We searched PubMed/MEDLINE (up to June 2011) to identify cost-effectiveness analyses of statin use for CV prevention reporting outcomes as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and/or life years gained (LYG). We examined relationships between the funding source and the study conclusions by means of tests of differences between proportions. Seventy-five studies were included. Forty-eight studies (64.0%) were industry-sponsored. Fifty-two (69.3%) articles compared statins versus non-active alternatives. Secondary CV prevention represented 42.7% of articles, followed by primary CV prevention (38.7%) and both (18.7%). Overall, industry-sponsored studies were much less likely to report unfavourable or neutral conclusions (0% versus 37.1%; p<0.001). For primary CV prevention, the proportion with unfavourable or neutral conclusions was 0% for industry-sponsored studies versus 57.9% for non-sponsored studies (p<0.001). Conversely, no statistically significant differences were identified for studies evaluating secondary CV prevention (0% versus 12.5%; p=0.222). Incremental costs per QALY/LYG estimates reported in industry-sponsored studies were generally more likely to fall below a hypothetical willingness-to-pay threshold of US $50,000.

Conclusions

Our systematic analysis suggests that pharmaceutical industry sponsored economic evaluations of statins have generally favored the cost-effectiveness profile of their products particularly in primary CV prevention.

SUBMITTER: Catala-Lopez F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3704635 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

When are statins cost-effective in cardiovascular prevention? A systematic review of sponsorship bias and conclusions in economic evaluations of statins.

Catalá-López Ferrán F Sanfélix-Gimeno Gabriel G Ridao Manuel M Peiró Salvador S

PloS one 20130708 7

<h4>Background</h4>We examined sponsorship of published cost-effectiveness analyses of statin use for cardiovascular (CV) prevention, and determined whether the funding source is associated with study conclusions.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>We searched PubMed/MEDLINE (up to June 2011) to identify cost-effectiveness analyses of statin use for CV prevention reporting outcomes as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and/or life years gained (LYG). We examined relationships betw ...[more]

PMID: 23861972

Similar Datasets

Project description:A comprehensive systematic review of economic evaluations of complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) to establish the value of these therapies to health reform efforts.PubMed, CINAHL, AMED, PsychInfo, Web of Science and EMBASE were searched from inception through 2010. In addition, bibliographies of found articles and reviews were searched, and key researchers were contacted.Studies of CIM were identified using criteria based on those of the Cochrane complementary and alternative medicine group. All studies of CIM reporting economic outcomes were included. STUDY APPRAISAL METHODS: All recent (and likely most cost-relevant) full economic evaluations published 2001-2010 were subjected to several measures of quality. Detailed results of higher-quality studies are reported.A total of 338 economic evaluations of CIM were identified, of which 204, covering a wide variety of CIM for different populations, were published 2001-2010. A total of 114 of these were full economic evaluations. And 90% of these articles covered studies of single CIM therapies and only one compared usual care to usual care plus access to multiple licensed CIM practitioners. Of the recent full evaluations, 31 (27%) met five study-quality criteria, and 22 of these also met the minimum criterion for study transferability ('generalisability'). Of the 56 comparisons made in the higher-quality studies, 16 (29%) show a health improvement with cost savings for the CIM therapy versus usual care. Study quality of the cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of CIM was generally comparable to that seen in CUAs across all medicine according to several measures, and the quality of the cost-saving studies was slightly, but not significantly, lower than those showing cost increases (85% vs 88%, p=0.460).This comprehensive review identified many CIM economic evaluations missed by previous reviews and emerging evidence of cost-effectiveness and possible cost savings in at least a few clinical populations. Recommendations are made for future studies.

Project description:Tanzania is facing a double burden of disease, with non-communicable diseases being an increasingly important contributor. Evidence-based preventive measures are important to limit the growing financial burden. This article aims to estimate the cost of providing medical primary prevention interventions for cardiovascular disease (CVD) among at-risk patients, reflecting actual resource use and if the World Health Organization (WHO)'s CVD medical preventive guidelines are implemented in Tanzania. In addition, we estimate and explore the cost to patients of receiving these services. Cost data were collected in four health facilities located in both urban and rural settings. Providers' costs were identified and measured using ingredients approach to costing and resource valuation followed the opportunity cost method. Unit costs were estimated using activity-based and step-down costing methodologies. The patient costs were obtained through a structured questionnaire. The unit cost of providing CVD medical primary prevention services ranged from US$30-41 to US$52-71 per patient per year at the health centre and hospital levels, respectively. Employing the WHO's absolute risk approach guidelines will substantially increase these costs. The annual patient cost of receiving these services as currently practised was estimated to be US$118 and US$127 for urban and rural patients, respectively. Providers' costs were estimated from two main viewpoints: 'what is', that is the current practice, and 'what if', reflecting a WHO guidelines scenario. The higher cost of implementing the WHO guidelines suggests the need for further evaluation of whether these added costs are reasonable relative to the added benefits. We also found considerably higher patient costs, implying that distributive and equity implications of access to care require more consideration. Facility location surfaced as the main explanatory variable for both direct and indirect patient costs in the regression analysis; further research on the influence of other provider characteristics on these costs is important.

Project description:BackgroundIn the quest for public and private resources, prevention continues to face a difficult challenge in obtaining tangible public and political support. This may be partly because the economic evidence in favour of prevention is often said to be largely missing. The overall aim of this paper is to examine whether economic evidence in favour of prevention does exist, and if so, what its main characteristics, weaknesses and strengths are. We concentrate on the evidence regarding primary prevention that targets cardiovascular disease event or risk reduction.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review of journal articles published during the period 1995-2005, based on a comprehensive key-word based search in generic and specialized electronic databases, accompanied by manual searches of expert databases. The search strategy consisted of combinations of freetext and keywords related to economic evaluation, cardiovascular diseases, and primary preventive interventions of risk assessment or modification.ResultsA total of 195 studies fulfilled all of the relevant inclusion criteria. Overall, a significant amount of relevant economic evidence in favour of prevention does exist, despite important remaining gaps. The majority of studies were cost-effectiveness-analyses, expressing benefits as "life years gained", were conducted in a US or UK setting, assessed clinical prevention, mainly drugs targeted at lowering lipid levels, and referred to subjects aged 35-64 years old with at least one risk factor.ConclusionFirst, this review has demonstrated the obvious lack of economic evaluations of broader health promotion interventions, when compared to clinical prevention. Second, the clear role for government to engage more actively in the economic evaluation of prevention has become very obvious, namely, to fill the gap left by private industry in terms of the evaluation of broader public health interventions and regarding clinical prevention, in light of the documented relationship between study funding and reporting of favourable results. Third, the value of greater adherence to established guidelines on economic evaluation cannot be emphasised enough. Finally, there appear to be certain methodological features in the practice of economic evaluations that might bias the choice between prevention and cure in favour of the latter.

Project description:BackgroundThe prevention of mental disorders and promotion of mental health and well-being are growing fields. Whether mental health promotion and prevention interventions provide value for money in children, adolescents, adults, and older adults is unclear. The aim of the current study is to update 2 existing reviews of cost-effectiveness studies in this field in order to determine whether such interventions are cost-effective.Methods and findingsElectronic databases (including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and EconLit through EBSCO and Embase) were searched for published cost-effectiveness studies of prevention of mental disorders and promotion of mental health and well-being from 2008 to 2020. The quality of studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies Instrument (QHES). The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (# CRD42019127778). The primary outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) or return on investment (ROI) ratio across all studies. A total of 65 studies met the inclusion criteria of a full economic evaluation, of which, 23 targeted children and adolescents, 35 targeted adults, while the remaining targeted older adults. A large number of studies focused on prevention of depression and/or anxiety disorders, followed by promotion of mental health and well-being and other mental disorders. Although there was high heterogeneity in terms of the design among included economic evaluations, most studies consistently found that interventions for mental health prevention and promotion were cost-effective or cost saving. The review found that targeted prevention was likely to be cost-effective compared to universal prevention. Screening plus psychological interventions (e.g., cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT]) at school were the most cost-effective interventions for prevention of mental disorders in children and adolescents, while parenting interventions and workplace interventions had good evidence in mental health promotion. There is inconclusive evidence for preventive interventions for mental disorders or mental health promotion in older adults. While studies were of general high quality, there was limited evidence available from low- and middle-income countries. The review was limited to studies where mental health was the primary outcome and may have missed general health promoting strategies that could also prevent mental disorder or promote mental health. Some ROI studies might not be included given that these studies are commonly published in grey literature rather than in the academic literature.ConclusionsOur review found a significant growth of economic evaluations in prevention of mental disorders or promotion of mental health and well-being over the last 10 years. Although several interventions for mental health prevention and promotion provide good value for money, the varied quality as well as methodologies used in economic evaluations limit the generalisability of conclusions about cost-effectiveness. However, the finding that the majority of studies especially in children, adolescents, and adults demonstrated good value for money is promising. Research on cost-effectiveness in low-middle income settings is required.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42019127778.

Project description:ObjectiveDabigatran was the first of a new generation of anticoagulation drugs for the indication of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) to be approved. Evidence show that dabigatran 150 mg twice daily significantly reduces the risk of stroke and systemic embolism (RR = 0.65; p < 0.001) and shows a comparable rate of major bleedings (RR = 0.93; p = 0.32), whereas dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was associated with a comparable rate of stroke and systemic embolism (RR = 0.90; p = 0.30) and a significantly lower rate of major bleedings compared to warfarin treatment (RR = 0.80; p = 0.003). The purpose is to review current economic evaluations of these alternatives for healthcare professionals to include these findings in their decision-making.MethodsA systematic literature search identified 43 economic evaluations, of which 10 were included and evaluated according to the Consensus Health Economic Criteria list (CHEC-list) and the Oxford model.ResultsSix economic evaluations concluded that dabigatran was a cost-effective alternative to warfarin. One evaluation concluded the same except when quality in warfarin treatment was excellent, with a mean time in therapeutic range (TTR) > 73%. Three evaluations concluded that dabigatran was a cost-effective alternative to warfarin in patient sub-groups; TTR ≤ 64%, congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥ 75, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (CHADS2 score) ≥3, or a CHADS2 score = 2 unless international normalized ratio (INR) control was excellent, and with high risk of stroke or in a low-quality warfarin treatment. Dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was in general dominated by dabigatran 150 mg twice daily.LimitationsThe evaluations were not fully homogeneous, as some did not include loss of productivity, costs of dyspepsia, and annual costs of dabigatran patient management.ConclusionsIn the majority of the economic evaluations, dabigatran is a cost-effective alternative to warfarin treatment. In some evaluations dabigatran is only cost-effective in sub-groups, such as patients with a low TTR-value in warfarin treatment and a CHADS2 score ≥2.

Dataset Information

When are statins cost-effective in cardiovascular prevention? A systematic review of sponsorship bias and conclusions in economic evaluations of statins.

Background

Methods and findings

Conclusions

Publications

When are statins cost-effective in cardiovascular prevention? A systematic review of sponsorship bias and conclusions in economic evaluations of statins.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets