Cost-effectiveness analysis of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events among patients with type 2 diabetes in China.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jiang M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6886850 | biostudies-literature | 2019
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in 2009 recommended increased aspirin use for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in men ages 45 to 79 years and women ages 55 to 79 years for whom benefit outweighs risk. This study estimated the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a statewide public and health professional awareness campaign to increase regular aspirin use among the target population in Minnesota to reduce first CVD events.Methods and resultsA state-transition Markov model was developed, adopting a payer perspective and lifetime time horizon. The main outcomes of interest were quality-adjusted life years, costs, and the number of CVD events averted among those without a prior CVD history. The model was based on real-world data about campaign effectiveness from representative state-specific aspirin use and event rates, and estimates from the scholarly literature. Implementation of a campaign was predicted to avert 9874 primary myocardial infarctions in men and 1223 primary ischemic strokes in women in the target population. Increased aspirin use was associated with as many as 7222 more major gastrointestinal bleeding episodes. The cost-effectiveness analysis indicated cost-saving results for both the male and female target populations.ConclusionsUsing current U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations, a state public and health professional awareness campaign would likely provide clinical benefit and be economically attractive. With clinician adjudication of individual benefit and risk, mechanisms can be made available that would facilitate achievement of aspirin's beneficial impact on lowering risk of primary CVD events, with minimization of adverse outcomes.
| S-EPMC4845274 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7457457 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6439626 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the benefits and harms of low dose aspirin in people with diabetes and no cardiovascular disease.DesignMeta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesMedline (1966-November 2008), the Cochrane central register of controlled trials (Cochrane Library 2008;issue 4), and reference lists of retrieved articles. Review methods Randomised trials of aspirin compared with placebo or no aspirin in people with diabetes and no pre-existing cardiovascular disease were eligible for inclusion. Data on major cardiovascular events (death from cardiovascular causes, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, and all cause mortality) were extracted and pooled with a random effect model. Results are reported as relative risks with 95% confidence intervals.ResultsOf 157 studies in the literature searches, six were eligible (10 117 participants). When aspirin was compared with placebo there was no statistically significant reduction in the risk of major cardiovascular events (five studies, 9584 participants; relative risk 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 1.00), cardiovascular mortality (four studies, n=8557, 0.94; 0.72 to 1.23), or all cause mortality (four studies, n=8557; 0.93, 0.82 to 1.05). Significant heterogeneity was found in the analysis for myocardial infarction (I(2)=62.2%; P=0.02) and stroke (I(2)=52.5%; P=0.08). Aspirin significantly reduced the risk of myocardial infarction in men (0.57, 0.34 to 0.94) but not in women (1.08, 0.71 to 1.65; P for interaction=0.056). Evidence relating to harms was inconsistent.ConclusionsA clear benefit of aspirin in the primary prevention of major cardiovascular events in people with diabetes remains unproved. Sex may be an important effect modifier. Toxicity is to be explored further.
| S-EPMC2774388 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInherited genetic variants can modify the cancer-chemopreventive effect of aspirin. We evaluated the clinical and economic value of genotype-guided aspirin use for colorectal cancer chemoprevention in average-risk individuals.MethodsA decision analytical model compared genotype-guided aspirin use versus no genetic testing, no aspirin. The model simulated 100,000 adults ≥50 years of age with average colorectal cancer and cardiovascular disease risk. Low-dose aspirin daily starting at age 50 years was recommended only for those with a genetic test result indicating a greater reduction in colorectal cancer risk with aspirin use. The primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsThe mean cost of using genotype-guided aspirin was $187,109 with 19.922 mean QALYs compared with $186,464 with 19.912 QALYs for no genetic testing, no aspirin. Genotype-guided aspirin yielded an ICER of $66,243 per QALY gained, and was cost-effective in 58% of simulations at the $100,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Genotype-guided aspirin was associated with 1,461 fewer polyps developed, 510 fewer colorectal cancer cases, and 181 fewer colorectal cancer-related deaths. This strategy prevented 1,078 myocardial infarctions with 1,430 gastrointestinal bleeding events, and 323 intracranial hemorrhage cases compared with no genetic testing, no aspirin.ConclusionsGenotype-guided aspirin use for colorectal cancer chemoprevention may offer a cost-effective approach for the future management of average-risk individuals.ImpactA genotype-guided aspirin strategy may prevent colorectal cancer, colorectal cancer-related deaths, and myocardial infarctions, while minimizing bleeding adverse events. This model establishes a framework for genetically-guided aspirin use for targeted chemoprevention of colorectal cancer with application toward commercial testing in this population.
| S-EPMC8172453 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Randomised controlled trials have shown a neutral or even unfavourable risk-benefit balance of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Using Danish nationwide registries, we investigated aspirin use and associated risks during the past two decades (1998-2018). We linked individual patient data on repeated aspirin redemptions with registered hospital ICD-10 diagnoses of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and bleedings. The prevalence of aspirin use among 1.1 million Danish adults fluctuated over the 20-year study period peaking in 2008 with 8.5% (5.4% primary prevention) and dropping to 5.1% (3.1% primary prevention) in 2018. Aspirin use showed strong age dependency, and 21% of individuals > 80 years were treated with aspirin for primary prevention in 2018. Medication adding to bleeding risk was used concurrently by 21% of all aspirin users in 2018. The incidence of major bleedings were similar with primary and secondary prevention aspirin use and highest in elderly (2 per 100 patient years among individuals > 80 years in 2018). In conclusion, low-dose aspirin use for primary prevention of cardiovascular events remains prevalent. The widespread use of aspirin, especially among older adults, and substantial concomitant use of medications adding to bleeding risk warrant increased focus on discontinuation of inappropriate aspirin use.
| S-EPMC8245534 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn several cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs), empagliflozin (SGLT-2 inhibitor), sitagliptin (DPP-4 inhibitor) and liraglutide (GLP-1 receptor agonist) + standard of care (SoC) were compared to SoC in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study assessed the cost-effectiveness (CE) of empagliflozin + SoC in comparison to sitagliptin + SoC and liraglutide + SoC based on the respective CVOT.MethodsThe IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (CDM) was calibrated to reproduce the CVOT outcomes. EMPA-REG OUTCOME baseline characteristics and CVOT specific treatment effects on risk factors for cardiovascular disease (HbA1c, BMI, blood pressure, lipids) were applied. Three-year observed cardiovascular events of empagliflozin + SoC versus sitagliptin + SoC and liraglutide + SoC were derived from EMPA-REG OUTCOME and an indirect treatment comparison. Relative risk adjustments to calibrate the CDM were obtained after a trial and error process to match as closely the observed and CDM-predicted outcomes. The drug-specific treatment effects were considered up until HbA1c reached 8.5% and treatment switch occurred. After this switch, the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study 82 risk equations predicted events based on co-existing risk factors and treatment intensification to basal bolus insulin were applied. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system applying 3% discounting. The time horizon was lifelong.ResultsEmpagliflozin + SoC provides additional Quality Adjusted Life years (QALY + 0.564) for an incremental cost of 42,497RMB (US$6053) compared to sitagliptin + SoC, resulting in an Incremental Cost Utility Ratio of 75,349RMB (US$10,732), thus below the willingness-to-pay threshold of 212,676RMB, corresponding to three times the Gross Domestic Product in China (2019). Compared to liraglutide + SoC, empagliflozin + SoC use leads to 0.211QALY gained and cost savings of 71,427RMB (US$10,173) and is as such dominant. Scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated the robustness of the results.ConclusionResults suggest that empagliflozin + SoC is cost-effective compared to sitagliptin + SoC and liraglutide + SoC at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 212,676RMB ($30,292)/QALY.
| S-EPMC8336098 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the benefits and harms of aspirin for the primary prevention of CVD and determine whether the effects vary by sex and diabetes status.MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of aspirin with placebo or control in people with no pre-existing CVD. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed the study quality. Analyses were performed using Stata version 12.ResultsFourteen trials (107,686 participants) were eligible. Aspirin was associated with reductions in major cardiovascular events (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-0.95), myocardial infarction (0.86; 0.75-0.93), ischemic stroke (0.86; 0.75-0.98) and all-cause mortality (0.94; 0.89-0.99). There were also increases in hemorrhagic stroke (1.34; 1.01-1.79) and major bleeding (1.55; 1.35-1.78) with aspirin. The number needed to treat to prevent 1 major cardiovascular event over a mean follow-up of 6.8 years was 284. By comparison, the numbers needed to harm to cause 1 major bleeding is 299. In subgroup analyses, pooled results demonstrated a reduction in myocardial infarction among men (0.71; 0.59-0.85) and ischemic stroke among women (0.77; 0.63-0.93). Aspirin use was associated with a reduction (0.65; 0.51-0.82) in myocardial infarction among diabetic men. In meta-regression analyses, the results suggested that aspirin therapy might be associated with a decrease in stroke among diabetic women and a decrease in MI among diabetic men and risk reductions achieved with low doses (75 mg/day) were as large as those obtained with higher doses (650 mg/day).ConclusionsThe use of low-dose aspirin was beneficial for primary prevention of CVD and the decision regarding an aspirin regimen should be made on an individual patient basis. The effects of aspirin therapy varied by sex and diabetes status. A clear benefit of aspirin in the primary prevention of CVD in people with diabetes needs more trials.
| S-EPMC4215843 | biostudies-literature
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:ImportanceThe role for aspirin in cardiovascular primary prevention remains controversial, with potential benefits limited by an increased bleeding risk.ObjectiveTo assess the association of aspirin use for primary prevention with cardiovascular events and bleeding.Data sourcesPubMed and Embase were searched on Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials from the earliest available date through November 1, 2018.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials enrolling at least 1000 participants with no known cardiovascular disease and a follow-up of at least 12 months were included. Included studies compared aspirin use with no aspirin (placebo or no treatment).Data extraction and synthesisData were screened and extracted independently by both investigators. Bayesian and frequentist meta-analyses were performed.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary cardiovascular outcome was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. The primary bleeding outcome was any major bleeding (defined by the individual studies).ResultsA total of 13 trials randomizing 164 225 participants with 1 050 511 participant-years of follow-up were included. The median age of trial participants was 62 years (range, 53-74), 77 501 (47%) were men, 30 361 (19%) had diabetes, and the median baseline risk of the primary cardiovascular outcome was 9.2% (range, 2.6%-15.9%). Aspirin use was associated with significant reductions in the composite cardiovascular outcome compared with no aspirin (57.1 per 10 000 participant-years with aspirin and 61.4 per 10 000 participant-years with no aspirin) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% credible interval, 0.84-0.95]; absolute risk reduction, 0.38% [95% CI, 0.20%-0.55%]; number needed to treat, 265). Aspirin use was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding events compared with no aspirin (23.1 per 10 000 participant-years with aspirin and 16.4 per 10 000 participant-years with no aspirin) (HR, 1.43 [95% credible interval, 1.30-1.56]; absolute risk increase, 0.47% [95% CI, 0.34%-0.62%]; number needed to harm, 210).Conclusions and relevanceThe use of aspirin in individuals without cardiovascular disease was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events and an increased risk of major bleeding. This information may inform discussions with patients about aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events and bleeding.
| S-EPMC6439678 | biostudies-literature