Dataset Information

Evaluating the Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Statin Use Guidelines for Primary Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Statins are effective in the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline expands recommended statin use, but its cost-effectiveness has not been compared with other guidelines. METHODS:We used the Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the ACC/AHA guideline relative to current use, Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines, and universal statin use in all men 45 to 74 years of age and women 55 to 74 years of age over a 10-year horizon from 2016 to 2025. Sensitivity analyses varied costs, risks, and benefits. Main outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and numbers needed to treat for 10 years per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RESULTS:Each approach produces substantial benefits and net cost savings relative to the status quo. Full adherence to the Adult Treatment Panel III guideline would result in 8.8 million more statin users than the status quo, at a number needed to treat for 10 years per quality-adjusted life-year gained of 35. The ACC/AHA guideline would potentially result in up to 12.3 million more statin users than the Adult Treatment Panel III guideline, with a marginal number needed to treat for 10 years per quality-adjusted life-year gained of 68. Moderate-intensity statin use in all men 45 to 74 years of age and women 55 to 74 years of age would result in 28.9 million more statin users than the ACC/AHA guideline, with a marginal number needed to treat for 10 years per quality-adjusted life-year gained of 108. In all cases, benefits would be greater in men than women. Results vary moderately with different risk thresholds for instituting statins and statin toxicity estimates but depend greatly on the disutility caused by daily medication use (pill burden). CONCLUSIONS:At a population level, the ACC/AHA guideline for expanded statin use for primary prevention is projected to treat more people, to save more lives, and to cost less compared with Adult Treatment Panel III in both men and women. Whether individuals benefit from long-term statin use for primary prevention depends more on the disutility associated with pill burden than their degree of cardiovascular risk.

SUBMITTER: Heller DJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5605438 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating the Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Statin Use Guidelines for Primary Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke.

Heller David J DJ Coxson Pamela G PG Penko Joanne J Pletcher Mark J MJ Goldman Lee L Odden Michelle C MC Kazi Dhruv S DS Bibbins-Domingo Kirsten K

Circulation 20170707 12

<h4>Background</h4>Statins are effective in the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline expands recommended statin use, but its cost-effectiveness has not been compared with other guidelines.<h4>Methods</h4>We used the Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the ACC/AHA guideline relative to current use, Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines, and universal ...[more]

PMID: 28687710

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceClinical and economic consequences of statin treatment guidelines supplemented by targeted coronary artery calcium (CAC) assessment have not been evaluated in African American individuals, who are at increased risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and less likely than non-African American individuals to receive statin therapy.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline without a recommendation for CAC assessment vs the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline recommendation for use of a non-0 CAC score measured on one occasion to target generic-formulation, moderate-intensity statin treatment in African American individuals at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.Design, setting, and participantsA microsimulation model was designed to estimate life expectancy, quality of life, costs, and health outcomes over a lifetime horizon. African American-specific data from 472 participants in the Jackson Heart Study (JHS) at intermediate risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and other US population-specific data on individuals from published sources were used. Data analysis was conducted from November 11, 2018, to November 1, 2019.Main outcomes and measuresLifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), discounted at 3% annually.ResultsIn a model-based economic evaluation informed in part by follow-up data, the analysis was focused on 472 individuals in the JHS at intermediate risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; mean (SD) age was 63 (6.7) years. The sample included 243 women (51.5%) and 229 men (48.5%). Of these, 178 of 304 participants (58.6%) who underwent CAC assessment had a non-0 CAC score. In the base-case scenario, implementation of 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines without CAC assessment provided a greater quality-adjusted life expectancy (0.0027 QALY) at a higher cost ($428.97) compared with the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline strategy with CAC assessment, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $158 325/QALY, which is considered to represent low-value care by the ACC/AHA definition. The 2018 ACC/AHA guideline strategy with CAC assessment provided greater quality-adjusted life expectancy at a lower cost compared with the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines without CAC assessment when there was a strong patient preference to avoid use of daily medication therapy. In probability sensitivity analyses, the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline strategy with CAC assessment was cost-effective compared with the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines without CAC assessment in 76% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay value of $100 000/QALY when there was a preference to lose 2 weeks of perfect health to avoid 1 decade of daily therapy.Conclusions and relevanceA CAC assessment-guided strategy for statin therapy appears to be cost-effective compared with initiating statin therapy in all African American individuals at intermediate risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and may provide greater quality-adjusted life expectancy at a lower cost than a non-CAC assessment-guided strategy when there is a strong patient preference to avoid the need for daily medication. Coronary artery calcium testing may play a role in shared decision-making regarding statin use.

Project description:The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) cholesterol treatment guidelines have wide-scale implications for treating adults without history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) with statins.To estimate the cost-effectiveness of various 10-year ASCVD risk thresholds that could be used in the ACC/AHA cholesterol treatment guidelines.Microsimulation model, including lifetime time horizon, US societal perspective, 3% discount rate for costs, and health outcomes. In the model, hypothetical individuals from a representative US population aged 40 to 75 years received statin treatment, experienced ASCVD events, and died from ASCVD-related or non-ASCVD-related causes based on ASCVD natural history and statin treatment parameters. Data sources for model parameters included National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, large clinical trials and meta-analyses for statin benefits and treatment, and other published sources.Estimated ASCVD events prevented and incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.In the base-case scenario, the current ASCVD threshold of 7.5% or higher, which was estimated to be associated with 48% of adults treated with statins, had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $37,000/QALY compared with a 10% or higher threshold. More lenient ASCVD thresholds of 4.0% or higher (61% of adults treated) and 3.0% or higher (67% of adults treated) had ICERs of $81,000/QALY and $140,000/QALY, respectively. Shifting from a 7.5% or higher ASCVD risk threshold to a 3.0% or higher ASCVD risk threshold was estimated to be associated with an additional 161,560 cardiovascular disease events averted. Cost-effectiveness results were sensitive to changes in the disutility associated with taking a pill daily, statin price, and the risk of statin-induced diabetes. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, there was a higher than 93% chance that the optimal ASCVD threshold was 5.0% or lower using a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000/QALY.In this microsimulation model of US adults aged 45 to 75 years [corrected], the current 10-year ASCVD risk threshold (?7.5% risk threshold) used in the ACC/AHA cholesterol treatment guidelines has an acceptable cost-effectiveness profile (ICER, $37,000/QALY), but more lenient ASCVD thresholds would be optimal using cost-effectiveness thresholds of $100,000/QALY (?4.0% risk threshold) or $150,000/QALY (?3.0% risk threshold). The optimal ASCVD threshold was sensitive to patient preferences for taking a pill daily, changes to statin price, and the risk of statin-induced diabetes.

Project description:ImportanceFor primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), the 2021 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines on statin use (hereafter European-ESC) recommend a new risk model (Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 [European-SCORE2]) as well as new age-specific treatment thresholds (≥7.5% 10-year ASCVD risk if aged 40-49 years and ≥10% if aged 50-69 years).ObjectiveTo compare the clinical performance of the 2021 European-ESC, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (hereafter US-ACC/AHA), UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK-NICE), and 2019 ESC/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) guidelines in apparently healthy individuals.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based contemporary cohort study included 66 909 individuals from the Copenhagen General Population Study. Participants were aged 40 to 69 years and were free of ASCVD, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and statin use at baseline in 2003 to 2015. Mean follow-up time was 9.2 years. Data were analyzed from November 2021 to April 2022.ExposuresStatin treatment according to guideline criteria.Main outcomes and measuresCalibration of risk calculators, statin eligibility, sensitivity, and specificity for ASCVD events according to guideline criteria.ResultsDuring follow-up, a range of 2962 to 4277 nonfatal and fatal ASCVD events was observed, as defined by the 2021 European-SCORE2, US pooled cohort equations (PCE), and UK-QRISK3 models, and 180 fatal ASCVD events were noted as defined by the 2019 European-SCORE1 model. European-SCORE2 was slightly better calibrated with a predicted/observed ASCVD event ratio of 0.8 vs 1.3 for US-PCE, 1.3 for UK-QRISK3, and 5.8 for European-SCORE1. For primary prevention class I recommendations in individuals aged 40 to 69 years, 2862 of 66 909 (4%) qualified for statins according to the 2021 European-ESC guidelines compared with 23 029 (34%) with US-ACC/AHA, 17 659 (26%) with UK-NICE, and 13 496 (20%) with 2019 European-ESC/EAS guidelines, with associated sensitivities for detecting future European-SCORE2-defined ASCVD events of 12%, 60%, 51%, and 36%, respectively. The sensitivity of the European-ESC guidelines was improved considerably by lowering the treatment thresholds, resulting in smaller losses in specificity. To obtain similar clinical performance with the 2021 European-ESC guidelines as in the other guidelines, the threshold with European-SCORE2 should be reduced to 5% overall to match US-ACC/AHA, to 6% to match UK-NICE, and to 7% to match 2019 European-ESC/EAS guidelines.Conclusions and relevanceDespite an improved European-SCORE2 prediction model, the new treatment thresholds in the 2021 European-ESC guidelines dramatically reduce eligibility for primary prevention with statins in low-risk European countries. Using lower treatment thresholds can improve overall guideline performance.

Project description:For hypertensive patients without a history of stroke or myocardial infarction (MI), the China Stroke Primary Prevention Trial (CSPPT) demonstrated that treatment with enalapril-folic acid reduced the risk of primary stroke compared with enalapril alone. Whether folic acid therapy is an affordable and beneficial treatment strategy for the primary prevention of stroke in hypertensive patients from the Chinese healthcare sector perspective has not been thoroughly explored. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the CSPPT, which randomized 20,702 hypertensive patients. A patient-level microsimulation model based on the 4.5-year period of in-trial data was used to estimate costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for enalapril-folic acid vs. enalapril over a lifetime horizon from the payer perspective. During the in-trial follow-up period, patients receiving enalapril-folic acid gained an average of 0.016 QALYs related primarily to reductions in stroke, and the incremental cost was $706.03 (4553.92 RMB). Over a lifetime horizon, enalapril-folic acid treatment was projected to increase quality-adjusted life years by 0.06 QALYs or 0.03 life-year relative to enalapril alone at an incremental cost of $1633.84 (10,538.27 RMB), resulting in an ICER for enalapril-folic acid compared with enalapril alone of $26,066.13 (168,126.54 RMB) per QALY gained and $61,770.73 (398,421.21 RMB) per life-year gained, respectively. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that enalapril-folic acid compared with enalapril would be economically attractive in 74.5% of simulations at a threshold of $37,663 (242,9281 RMB) per QALY (3x current Chinese per capita GDP). Several high-risk subgroups had highly favorable ICERs < $12,554 (80,976 RMB) per QALY (1x GDP). For both in-trial and over a lifetime, it appears that enalapril-folic acid is a clinically and economically attractive medication compared with enalapril alone. Adding folic acid to enalapril may be a cost-effective strategy for the prevention of primary stroke in hypertensive patients from the Chinese health system perspective.

Dataset Information

Evaluating the Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Statin Use Guidelines for Primary Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke.

Publications

Evaluating the Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Statin Use Guidelines for Primary Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets