Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Mihaylova B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4801501 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Mihaylova Borislava B Schlackow Iryna I Herrington William W Lozano-Kühne Jingky J Kent Seamus S Emberson Jonathan J Reith Christina C Haynes Richard R Cass Alan A Craig Jonathan J Gray Alastair A Collins Rory R Landray Martin J MJ Baigent Colin C

American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation 20151118 4

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Study design</h4>Cost-effectiveness of simvastatin plus ezetimibe in SHARP, a randomized controlled trial.<h4>Setting & population</h4>9,270 patients with CKD randomly assigned to simvastatin plus ezetimibe ve ...[more]

PMID: 26597925

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Dual pathway inhibition with 2.5?mg rivaroxaban twice daily plus 100?mg aspirin once daily may be a promising alternative to 100?mg aspirin antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease and/or peripheral arterial disease. However, treatment costs and bleeding risks are higher, and there is another treatment option for peripheral arterial disease, 75?mg clopidogrel. A comprehensive assessment of benefits, risks and costs of dual pathway inhibition versus standard of care is needed. METHODS:We used a state transition model including cardiovascular, ischaemic limb and bleeding events to compare dual pathway inhibition to aspirin antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease, and additionally to clopidogrel antiplatelet therapy in peripheral arterial disease patients. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from costs and quality-adjusted life-years of lifelong treatment, and the cost-effectiveness probability at a €50,000/quality-adjusted life-year threshold. RESULTS:Quality-adjusted life-years and costs of dual pathway inhibition were highest, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios versus aspirin were €32,109 in coronary artery disease and €26,381 in peripheral arterial disease patients, with 92% and 56% cost-effectiveness probability, respectively (clopidogrel was extendedly dominated). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below €20,000 in comorbid peripheral arterial disease patients and coronary artery disease patients younger than 65 years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were above €50,000 in carotid artery disease patients and coronary artery disease patients older than 75 years. CONCLUSION:Lifelong preventive treatment of coronary artery disease and peripheral arterial disease patients at risk of cardiovascular events with dual pathway inhibition improves health outcomes and seems overall cost-effective relative to aspirin antiplatelet therapy and also to clopidogrel antiplatelet therapy for peripheral arterial disease, particularly in comorbid patients, but not in older patients and in carotid artery disease patients. These findings may warrant a targeted approach.

Project description:ImportanceIn the Canakinumab Anti-inflammatory Thrombosis Outcome Study (CANTOS) trial, the anti-inflammatory monoclonal antibody canakinumab significantly reduced the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with previous myocardial infarction (MI) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) levels of 2 mg/L or greater.ObjectiveTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of adding canakinumab to standard of care for the secondary prevention of major cardiovascular events over a range of potential prices.Design, setting, and participantsA state-transition Markov model was constructed to estimate costs and outcomes over a lifetime horizon by projecting rates of recurrent MI, coronary revascularization, infection, and lung cancer with and without canakinumab treatment. We used a US health care sector perspective, and the base case used the current US market price of canakinumab of $73 000 per year. A hypothetical cohort of patients after MI aged 61 years with an hs-CRP level of 2 mg/L or greater was constructed.InterventionsCanakinumab, 150 mg, administered every 3 months plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone.Main outcomes and measuresLifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), discounted at 3% annually.ResultsAdding canakinumab to standard of care increased life expectancy from 11.31 to 11.36 years, QALYs from 9.37 to 9.50, and costs from $242 000 to $1 074 000, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $6.4 million per QALY gained. The price would have to be reduced by more than 98% (to $1150 per year or less) to meet the $100 000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. These results were generally robust across alternative assumptions, eg, substantially lower health-related quality of life after recurrent cardiovascular events, lower infection rates while receiving canakinumab, and reduced all-cause mortality while receiving canakinumab. Including a potential beneficial effect of canakinumab on lung cancer incidence improved the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to $3.5 million per QALY gained. A strategy of continuing canakinumab selectively in patients with reduction in hs-CRP levels to less than 2 mg/L would have a cost-effectiveness ratio of $819 000 per QALY gained.Conclusions and relevanceCanakinumab is not cost-effective at current US prices for prevention of recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with a prior MI. Substantial price reductions would be needed for canakinumab to be considered cost-effective.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Lowering LDL cholesterol with statin regimens reduces the risk of myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, and the need for coronary revascularisation in people without kidney disease, but its effects in people with moderate-to-severe kidney disease are uncertain. The SHARP trial aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the combination of simvastatin plus ezetimibe in such patients. METHODS:This randomised double-blind trial included 9270 patients with chronic kidney disease (3023 on dialysis and 6247 not) with no known history of myocardial infarction or coronary revascularisation. Patients were randomly assigned to simvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg daily versus matching placebo. The key prespecified outcome was first major atherosclerotic event (non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death, non-haemorrhagic stroke, or any arterial revascularisation procedure). All analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00125593, and ISRCTN54137607. FINDINGS:4650 patients were assigned to receive simvastatin plus ezetimibe and 4620 to placebo. Allocation to simvastatin plus ezetimibe yielded an average LDL cholesterol difference of 0·85 mmol/L (SE 0·02; with about two-thirds compliance) during a median follow-up of 4·9 years and produced a 17% proportional reduction in major atherosclerotic events (526 [11·3%] simvastatin plus ezetimibe vs 619 [13·4%] placebo; rate ratio [RR] 0·83, 95% CI 0·74-0·94; log-rank p=0·0021). Non-significantly fewer patients allocated to simvastatin plus ezetimibe had a non-fatal myocardial infarction or died from coronary heart disease (213 [4·6%] vs 230 [5·0%]; RR 0·92, 95% CI 0·76-1·11; p=0·37) and there were significant reductions in non-haemorrhagic stroke (131 [2·8%] vs 174 [3·8%]; RR 0·75, 95% CI 0·60-0·94; p=0·01) and arterial revascularisation procedures (284 [6·1%] vs 352 [7·6%]; RR 0·79, 95% CI 0·68-0·93; p=0·0036). After weighting for subgroup-specific reductions in LDL cholesterol, there was no good evidence that the proportional effects on major atherosclerotic events differed from the summary rate ratio in any subgroup examined, and, in particular, they were similar in patients on dialysis and those who were not. The excess risk of myopathy was only two per 10,000 patients per year of treatment with this combination (9 [0·2%] vs 5 [0·1%]). There was no evidence of excess risks of hepatitis (21 [0·5%] vs 18 [0·4%]), gallstones (106 [2·3%] vs 106 [2·3%]), or cancer (438 [9·4%] vs 439 [9·5%], p=0·89) and there was no significant excess of death from any non-vascular cause (668 [14·4%] vs 612 [13·2%], p=0·13). INTERPRETATION:Reduction of LDL cholesterol with simvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg daily safely reduced the incidence of major atherosclerotic events in a wide range of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. FUNDING:Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals; Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; British Heart Foundation; UK Medical Research Council.

Project description:BackgroundCardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death worldwide. Like many countries, Australia is currently changing its guidelines for cardiovascular disease prevention from drug treatment for everyone with 'high blood pressure' or 'high cholesterol', to prevention based on a patient's absolute risk. In this research, we model cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular disease prevention with blood pressure and lipid drugs in Australia under three different scenarios: (1) the true current practice in Australia; (2) prevention as intended under the current guidelines; and (3) prevention according to proposed absolute risk levels. We consider the implications of changing to absolute risk-based cardiovascular disease prevention, for the health of the Australian people and for Government health sector expenditure over the long term.MethodsWe evaluate cost-effectiveness of statins, diuretics, ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers and beta-blockers, for Australian men and women, aged 35 to 84 years, who have never experienced a heart disease or stroke event. Epidemiological changes and health care costs are simulated by age and sex in a discrete time Markov model, to determine total impacts on population health and health sector costs over the lifetime, from which we derive cost-effectiveness ratios in 2008 Australian dollars per quality-adjusted life year.ResultsCardiovascular disease prevention based on absolute risk is more cost-effective than prevention under the current guidelines based on single risk factor thresholds, and is more cost-effective than the current practice, which does not follow current clinical guidelines. Recommending blood pressure-lowering drugs to everyone with at least 5% absolute risk and statin drugs to everyone with at least 10% absolute risk, can achieve current levels of population health, while saving $5.4 billion for the Australian Government over the lifetime of the population. But savings could be as high as $7.1 billion if Australia could match the cheaper price of statin drugs in New Zealand.ConclusionsChanging to absolute risk-based cardiovascular disease prevention is highly recommended for reducing health sector spending, but the Australian Government must also consider measures to reduce the cost of statin drugs, over and above the legislated price cuts of November 2010.

Project description:Treatment guidelines recommend LDL-C as the primary target of therapy in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Moreover, combination therapies with lipid-lowering drugs that have different mechanisms of action are recommended when it is not possible to attain LDL-C targets with statin monotherapy. Understanding which treatment or patient-related factors are associated with attaining a target may be clinically relevant.Data were pooled from two multicenter, randomized, double-blind studies. After stabilization on simvastatin 20 mg, patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) alone and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) were randomized to ezetimibe 10 mg/simvastatin 20 mg (EZ/Simva) or simvastatin 40 mg. The change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), TC/HDL-C ratio, triglycerides, and the proportion of patients achieving LDL-C < 2.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) after 6 weeks of treatment were assessed, and factors significantly correlated with the probability of achieving LDL-C < 2.6 mmol/L in a population of high cardiovascular risk Italian patients were identified. A stepwise logistic regression model was conducted with LDL-C < 2.6 mmol/L at endpoint as the dependent variable and study, treatment, gender, age (> or = 65 years or < 65 years), as independent variables and baseline LDL-C (both as continuous and discrete variable).EZ/Simva treatment (N = 93) resulted in significantly greater reductions in LDL-C, TC, and TC/HDL-C ratio and higher attainment of LDL-C < 2.6 mmol/L vs doubling the simvastatin dose to 40 mg (N = 106). Study [including diabetic patients (OR = 2.9, p = 0.003)], EZ/Simva treatment (OR = 6.1, p < 0.001), and lower baseline LDL-C (OR = 0.9, p = 0.001) were significant positive predictors of LDL-C target achievement. When baseline LDL-C was expressed as a discrete variable, the odds of achieving LDL-C < 2.6 mmol/L was 4.8 in favor of EZ/Simva compared with Simva 40 mg (p < 0.001), regardless of baseline LDL-C level.EZ/Simva is an effective therapeutic option for patients who have not achieved recommended LDL-C treatment targets with simvastatin 20 mg monotherapy.Clinical trial registration numbers: NCT00423488 and NCT00423579.

Project description:BackgroundThe absolute and relative importance of smoking to vascular and nonvascular outcomes in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD), as well its relevance to kidney disease progression, is uncertain.Study designObservational study.Setting & participants9,270 participants with CKD enrolled in SHARP.PredictorBaseline smoking status (current, former, and never).OutcomesVascular events, site-specific cancer, ESRD, rate of change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and cause-specific mortality.ResultsAt baseline, 1,243 (13%) participants were current smokers (median consumption, 10 cigarettes/day); 3,272 (35%), former smokers; and 4,755 (51%), never smokers. Median follow-up was 4.9 years. Vascular event rates were 36% higher for current than never smokers (2,317 events; relative risk [RR], 1.36; 95% CI, 1.19-1.55), reflecting increases in both atherosclerotic (RR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.26-1.76) and nonatherosclerotic (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1.50) events. Cancer was 37% higher among current smokers (632 events; RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07-1.76), with the biggest RRs for lung (RR, 9.31; 95% CI, 4.37-19.83) and upper aerodigestive tract (RR, 4.87; 95% CI, 2.10-11.32) cancers. For 6,245 patients not receiving dialysis at baseline, ESRD incidence did not differ significantly between current and never smokers (2,141 events; RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89-1.17), nor did estimated rate of change in eGFR (current smokers, -1.77±0.14 [SE]; never smokers, -1.70±0.07mL/min/1.73m(2) per year). All-cause mortality was 48% higher among current smokers (2,257 events; RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.30-1.70), with significant increases in vascular (RR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.07-1.69) and nonvascular (RR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.34-1.91) causes of death, especially cancer (RR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.58-3.40) and respiratory (RR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.51-3.35) mortality.LimitationsSmoking status not assessed during follow-up.ConclusionsIn this study of patients with CKD, smoking significantly increased the risks for vascular and nonvascular morbidity and mortality, but was not associated with kidney disease progression. The associations with vascular and neoplastic disease are in keeping with those observed in the general population and are likely modifiable by cessation.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets