Dataset Information

A single blind, multicenter, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost of a novel nutraceutical (LopiGLIK®) lowering cardiovascular disease risk.

ABSTRACT: Context:Cardiovascular disease (CVD) costs the economy €210 billion per year in Europe. There is an association between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and CVD risk. Objective:To evaluate the cost and effectiveness of LopiGLIK® (LOPI) in lowering LDL-C and CVD risk. Design:Single blind multicenter randomized controlled trial; patients were divided into two groups, subjected to centralized randomization. Setting:Four Italian regions. Participants:Thirty-one physicians enrolled 573 adult patients with mild hypercholesterolemia between January 2016 and January 2018. Intervention:Patients were treated for 16 weeks either with LOPI (intervention) or Armolipid Plus® (AP; control). Outcome measures:Primary outcome: percentage of patients who achieved LDL-C <130 mg/dL. Secondary outcomes: reduction of HbA1c, survival analysis and HR linked to 38.67 mg/dL reduction of LDL-C and 1% reduction of HbA1c. Costs were assessed per unit and cure. Results:Three hundred and seventy patients treated with LOPI and 203 treated with AP were randomized and completed the study. At baseline 8.9% (n=18) patients treated with AP and 9.5% (n=35) treated with LOPI had LDL-C levels <130 mg/dL (P=0.815). At the 16-week follow-up, 41.4% (n=84) of patients treated with AP and 67.6% (n=250) with LOPI achieved LDL-C levels <130 mg/dL (P<0.001). LOPI patients were three times more likely to achieve LDL-C levels <130 mg/dL; adjusted OR 2.97 (95% CI; 2.08-4.24; P<0.001), number needed to treat was four (95% CI; 5.60-2.90; P<0.001). Survival analysis demonstrated the superiority of LOPI vs AP relative to 38.67 mg/dL LDL-C reduction (P<0.002); HR was 0.761 (95% CI; 0.62-0.94; P<0.001). Both products reduced the HbA1c without a significant difference between them (P=0.156). Survival analysis and HR (0.91; 95% CI; 0.70-1.18) estimated for 1% HbA1c reduction, showed differences between LOPI and AP, which were not significant (P=0.411; P=0.464). The cost of LOPI was €2.11 (unit), €211 (cure), and AP €3.77 and €377, respectively. Conclusion:LOPI appeared more effective and less expensive than AP in lowering LDL-C and CVD risk. Trial registration:NCT02898805, September 8, 2016.

SUBMITTER: Manfrin A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6181120 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A single blind, multicenter, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost of a novel nutraceutical (LopiGLIK<sup>®</sup>) lowering cardiovascular disease risk.

Manfrin Andrea A Trimarco Valentina V Manzi Maria Virginia MV Rozza Francesco F Izzo Raffaele R

ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR 20181008

<h4>Context</h4>Cardiovascular disease (CVD) costs the economy €210 billion per year in Europe. There is an association between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and CVD risk.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the cost and effectiveness of LopiGLIK<sup>®</sup> (LOPI) in lowering LDL-C and CVD risk.<h4>Design</h4>Single blind multicenter randomized controlled trial; patients were divided into two groups, subjected to centralized randomization.<h4>Setting</h4>Four Italian regions.<h4>Particip ...[more]

PMID: 30349338

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Selective Laser Trabeculoplasty (SLT) with the SLT mode of the VISULAS® green laser in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG).MethodsThis prospective, interventional multicenter clinical investigation included patients with POAG who either needed a treatment escalation because the individual intraocular pressure (IOP) target was not met or treatment initiation and had an IOP ≥ 17 mmHg at baseline in the study eye. The study was conducted in five research centers across Germany. Approximately 100 laser applications were delivered to 360° of the trabecular meshwork. Glaucoma medications were not modified during the 3-month follow-up to allow evaluation of the sole effect of VISULAS® green with SLT. Efficacy outcomes were postoperatively absolute and relative IOP changes at 1 and 3 months. Safety outcomes analyzed the rate of intra- and postoperative adverse events.ResultsThirty-four eyes of 34 POAG patients were included. The overall mean number of preoperative glaucoma medications was 2.2 ± 1.4 in 29 treated eyes, 5 eyes were treatment naïve. Mean baseline IOP (mmHg) was 21.0 ± 2.69 and was reduced by - 3.53 ± 3.34 [95% CI - 4.61; - 2.45] and - 3.59 ± 3.41 [95% CI - 4.64; - 2.53] at the 1- and 3-month follow-up, respectively (p < 0.0001), with 48.5% of cases achieving a ≥ 20% IOP reduction at 3 months [95% CI = 30.8%; 66.5%]. The mean relative IOP reduction was - 16.4% and - 16.3% at 1 and 3 months, respectively (p < 0.0001). Potentially device- or procedure-related adverse events were mild to moderate and included 3 postoperative IOP-spikes and 6 reports regarding eye pain and discomfort. All were resolved without sequelae.ConclusionsSLT performed with the VISULAS® green laser achieved clinically significant additional IOP reductions in medically treated as well as in treatment naïve eyes with POAG and there were no relevant safety issues. The results are comparable to other reported SLT studies.

Project description:IntroductionWe evaluated the cost-effectiveness of linagliptin in Japan by estimating the lifetime outcome based on clinical event rates from the Asian subpopulation of the CARMELINA trial. In CARMELINA, linagliptin added to standard of care (SoC) versus SoC demonstrated noninferiority with regard to risk of composite cardiovascular (CV) outcome in patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk of CV and kidney events. Issues resulting from conducting a cost-effectiveness analysis using data from a clinical noninferiority study were also investigated.MethodsA microsimulation model was used to evaluate linagliptin/SoC versus SoC in terms of direct costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from a Japanese public healthcare payer's perspective. Cost data were obtained from recent Japanese publications. The time horizon was defined as lifetime, and the discount rate for costs and effectiveness was 2% per year. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsIn the base case analysis, and taking medical history into account, the incremental effectiveness of linagliptin/SoC versus SoC was 1.34 QALYs, and the incremental cost for linagliptin was - 545,319 yen. In the one-way sensitivity analysis, the parameter which most affected the results was the hazard ratio for renal failure of linagliptin/SoC compared with SoC. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of reduced costs and increased effectiveness (dominant) was 48%. Assuming an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold of 5 million yen, the probability that the ICER was below the threshold was 89% for linagliptin/SoC compared with SoC.ConclusionsThis evaluation, using Asian subpopulation data from the CARMELINA trial, suggested that the cost-effectiveness of linagliptin for a lifetime outcome was favourable in Japan. However, the results must be interpreted cautiously because of the noninferiority trial data source, which might cause ICER variations for each parameter.

Project description:BackgroundGene expression profiling tests can predict the risk of disease recurrence and select patients who are expected to benefit from therapy, while allowing other patients to forgo therapy. For breast cancers, these tests were initially designed to tailor chemotherapy decisions, but recent evidence suggests that they may also guide the use of endocrine therapy. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of a prognostic test, MammaPrint®, to guide the use of adjuvant endocrine therapy in patients eligible according to Dutch treatment guidelines.MethodsWe constructed a Markov decision model to calculate the lifetime costs (in 2020 Euros) and effects (survival and quality-adjusted life-years) of MammaPrint® testing versus usual care (endocrine therapy for all patients) in a simulated cohort of patients. The population of interest includes patients for whom MammaPrint® testing is currently not indicated, but for whom it may be possible to safely omit endocrine therapy. We applied both a health care perspective and a societal perspective and discounted costs (4%) and effects (1.5%). Model inputs were obtained from published research (including randomized controlled trials), nationwide cancer registry data, cohort data and publicly available data sources. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainty around input parameters. Additionally, threshold analyses were performed to identify under which circumstances MammaPrint® testing would be cost effective.ResultsAdjuvant endocrine therapy guided by MammaPrint® resulted in fewer side effects, more (quality-adjusted) life-years (0.10 and 0.07 incremental QALYS and LYs, respectively) and higher costs (€18,323 incremental costs) compared with the usual care strategy in which all patients receive endocrine therapy. While costs for hospital visits, medication costs and productivity costs were somewhat higher in the usual care strategy, these did not outweigh costs of testing in the MammaPrint® strategy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €185,644 per QALY gained from a healthcare perspective and €180,617 from a societal perspective. Sensitivity and scenario analyses showed that the conclusions remained the same under changed input parameters and assumptions. Our results show that MammaPrint® can become a cost-effective strategy when either the price of the test is reduced (> 50%), or the proportion of patients for which treatment is altered (i.e. those with ultra-low risk) increases to > 26%.ConclusionStandard MammaPrint® testing to guide the use of endocrine therapy in our simulated patient population appears not to be a cost-effective strategy compared with usual care. The cost effectiveness of the test can be improved by reducing the price or preselecting a population more likely to benefit from the test.

Project description:Background: There is little experience in the economic evaluation of pharmacy/primary care collaborative health interventions using interprofessional technology-driven communication under real-world conditions. This study aimed to conduct cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses of a collaborative care intervention in hypertension and hyperlipidemia management between pharmacies and primary care versus usual (fragmented) care alongside a trial. Methods: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 6-month pragmatic quasi-experimental controlled trial. Data sources included primary care clinical software; pharmacy dispensing software; patient telephone surveys; and published literature. The target population was adult patients on hypertension and/or lipid-lowering medication. The perspective was societal. We collected patient-level data on resource use to estimate trial costs. Effect outcomes included blood pressure (BP) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Bootstrapping was used to estimate uncertainty around the incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios. Cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves were estimated. Results: The intervention was not shown to have reasonable levels of cost-effectiveness or cost-utility when compared to usual care as denoted by the levels of uncertainty expressed in wide confidence intervals. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective is 28% at the threshold of €20,000 per QALY gained and 57% at the threshold of €500 per mmHg systolic BP decrease. Conclusion: Considering the limitations of the trial which affected effectiveness and economic outcomes, our results are not generalizable for community pharmacy and primary care in Portugal. This research offers, however, valuable lessons on methods and strategies that can be used in future economic evaluations of collaborative public health interventions with the potential for reimbursement. Clinical trial registration: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13410498, identifier ISRCTN13410498.

Project description:IntroductionThe prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is increasing. Furthermore, asymptomatic individuals may not receive timely preventive initiatives to minimise the risk of further CVD events. Paradoxically, 80% of CVD events are preventable by early detection, followed by prophylactic initiatives. Consequently, we introduced the population-based Viborg Screening Programme (VISP) for subclinical and manifest CVD, focusing on commonly occurring, mainly asymptomatic conditions, followed by prophylactic initiatives.The aim of the VISP was to evaluate the health benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of the VISP from a healthcare sector perspective. Furthermore, we explored the participants' perspectives.Methods and analysisFrom August 2014 and currently ongoing, approximately 1100 men and women from the Viborg municipality, Denmark, are annually invited to screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm, peripheral arterial disease, carotid plaque, hypertension, diabetes mellitus and cardiac arrhythmia on their 67th birthday. A population from the surrounding municipalities without access to the VISP acts as a control. The VISP invitees and the controls are followed on the individual level by nationwide registries. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality, while costs, hospitalisations and deaths from CVD are the secondary endpoints.Interim evaluations of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are planned every 5 years using propensity score matching followed by a Cox proportional hazards regression analysis by the 'intention-to-treat' principle. Furthermore, censoring-adjusted incremental costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years are estimated. Finally, the participants' perspectives are explored by semistructured face-to-face interviews, with participant selection representing participants with both negative and positive screening results.Ethics and disseminationThe VISP is not an interventional trial. Therefore, approval from a regional scientific ethical committee is not needed. Data collection from national registries was approved by the Regional Data Protection Agency (record no. 1-16-02-232-15). We ensure patient and public involvement in evaluating the acceptability of VISP by adopting an interviewing approach in the study.Trial registration numberNCT03395509.

Project description:IntroductionFrequent glucose monitoring is essential to obtain glucose control. This is done by periodic self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) using finger-prick testing, or by using continuous glucose monitoring devices, wherein a sensor records interstitial glucose data automatically. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of using the FreeStyle Libre Flash Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (FSL) compared to SMBG in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with insulin from a Swedish societal perspective.MethodsCost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using the IQVIA Core Diabetes model v9.5, with demographic and clinical inputs from a real-world study using Swedish National Diabetes Register data. Two cohorts of individuals with T2D were considered based on baseline HbA1C (HbA1c: 8-9% [64-75 mmol/mol]; HbA1c: 9-12% [75-108 mmol/mol]). HbA1c reductions with FSL were - 0.41% (- 4 mmol/mol; SD: 0.94%-10 mmol/mol) and - 1.30% (- 14 mmol/mol; SD: 1.40%-15 mmol/mol) for the two cohorts, respectively. Utilities, treatment costs and diabetes-related complication costs were obtained from published sources. Analyses were conducted over a lifetime horizon, applying annual discounting of 3% on costs and effects. Scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsIndividuals with T2D who had a baseline HbA1c of 8-9% (64-75 mmol/mol) and 9-12% (75-108 mmol/mol) and used FSL gained 0.50 and 0.57 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), respectively, at an incremental cost of SEK109,957 and SEK82,170 compared to SMBG, generating an incremental cost-utility ratio of SEK219,127 and SEK144,412 per QALY gained. Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of SEK300,000 per QALY gained, FSL use was considered cost-effective compared to SMBG for the majority of the individuals in both the lower and higher HbA1c cohorts. The key driver identified was the additional quality-of-life benefit that applied to FSL use.ConclusionThe FreeStyle Libre Flash Continuous Glucose Monitoring System is a cost-effective glucose monitoring alternative to SMBG for individuals with T2D in Sweden who are treated with insulin but are not reaching their glycaemic goals.

Dataset Information

A single blind, multicenter, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost of a novel nutraceutical (LopiGLIK®) lowering cardiovascular disease risk.

Publications

A single blind, multicenter, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost of a novel nutraceutical (LopiGLIK<sup>®</sup>) lowering cardiovascular disease risk.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets