Using a Markov Model and Real-World Evidence to Identify the Most Cost-Effective Cholesterol Treatment Escalation Threshold for the Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease.

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Alfredo Mariani, Syed Mohiuddin, Patrick Muller, Eleanor Samarasekera, Sharon A Swain, Joseph Mills, Riyaz Patel, David Preiss, Eduard Shantsila, Beatrice C Downing, Michael Lonergan, Shaun Rowark, Nicky J Welton, Rachael Williams, David Wonderling
{"title":"Using a Markov Model and Real-World Evidence to Identify the Most Cost-Effective Cholesterol Treatment Escalation Threshold for the Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease.","authors":"Alfredo Mariani, Syed Mohiuddin, Patrick Muller, Eleanor Samarasekera, Sharon A Swain, Joseph Mills, Riyaz Patel, David Preiss, Eduard Shantsila, Beatrice C Downing, Michael Lonergan, Shaun Rowark, Nicky J Welton, Rachael Williams, David Wonderling","doi":"10.1007/s40258-025-00977-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the decreased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) with statins, there remains an unfulfilled clinical need to prevent CVD events and premature mortality through further cholesterol-modifying interventions. In people with established CVD taking a statin, lipid therapy escalation to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) or non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) levels may lower the risk of CVD hospital admissions and improve survival. However, the cost-effectiveness of different cholesterol treatment escalation thresholds is uncertain.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to identify the most cost-effective cholesterol threshold for escalating lipid therapy in people with established CVD who are taking a statin, to support the 2023 update of the NICE guideline on CVD in England.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cohort Markov model with a yearly cycle length was developed to compare the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of various LDL-C treatment escalation thresholds (0-4.0 mmol/L), using a combination of treatment effects from an original network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), real-world data for estimating baseline cholesterol levels and CVD event rates from a published meta-analysis of statin RCTs. The model used the following CVD events: ischaemic stroke; transient ischaemic attack; peripheral artery disease; myocardial infarction; unstable angina; coronary revascularisation; and mortality. The model also used evidence-based estimates of resource use and costs, and published quality of life data. Baseline LDL-C levels and CVD hospital admission rates were estimated through a bespoke analysis of the English primary care data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), linked to Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care (HES) and Office for National Statistics (ONS) death registrations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 590,917 adult individuals (61.7% men) with CVD on a statin in primary care between 1 January 2013 and 28 February 2020 were included in the CPRD-HES-ONS analysis. The most cost-effective threshold for lipid therapy escalation was an LDL-C of 2.2 mmol/L (or equivalent non-HDL-C of 2.9 mmol/L) at NICE's lower cost per QALY of £20,000. An LDL-C of 2.0 mmol/L (or equivalent non-HDL-C of 2.6 mmol/L) was the most cost-effective treatment escalation threshold in a significant proportion (38%) of probabilistic simulations and produced more health. At this threshold, the model predicted that 42% of people with CVD would require combination therapy with ezetimibe while 19% would require an injectable drug such as inclisiran. At NICE's upper cost per QALY of £30,000, the most cost-effective LDL-C treatment escalation threshold was 1.7 mmol/L (or equivalent non-HDL-C of 2.2 mmol/L).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results demonstrate the importance of establishing evidence of cost-effectiveness for cholesterol treatment escalation thresholds. The study's findings support the updated NICE guideline recommending a threshold of 2.0 mmol/L LDL-C (or equivalent non-HDL-C of 2.6 mmol/L) for secondary prevention of CVD.</p>","PeriodicalId":8065,"journal":{"name":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-025-00977-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite the decreased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) with statins, there remains an unfulfilled clinical need to prevent CVD events and premature mortality through further cholesterol-modifying interventions. In people with established CVD taking a statin, lipid therapy escalation to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) or non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) levels may lower the risk of CVD hospital admissions and improve survival. However, the cost-effectiveness of different cholesterol treatment escalation thresholds is uncertain.

Objective: This study aimed to identify the most cost-effective cholesterol threshold for escalating lipid therapy in people with established CVD who are taking a statin, to support the 2023 update of the NICE guideline on CVD in England.

Methods: A cohort Markov model with a yearly cycle length was developed to compare the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of various LDL-C treatment escalation thresholds (0-4.0 mmol/L), using a combination of treatment effects from an original network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), real-world data for estimating baseline cholesterol levels and CVD event rates from a published meta-analysis of statin RCTs. The model used the following CVD events: ischaemic stroke; transient ischaemic attack; peripheral artery disease; myocardial infarction; unstable angina; coronary revascularisation; and mortality. The model also used evidence-based estimates of resource use and costs, and published quality of life data. Baseline LDL-C levels and CVD hospital admission rates were estimated through a bespoke analysis of the English primary care data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), linked to Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care (HES) and Office for National Statistics (ONS) death registrations.

Results: Data from 590,917 adult individuals (61.7% men) with CVD on a statin in primary care between 1 January 2013 and 28 February 2020 were included in the CPRD-HES-ONS analysis. The most cost-effective threshold for lipid therapy escalation was an LDL-C of 2.2 mmol/L (or equivalent non-HDL-C of 2.9 mmol/L) at NICE's lower cost per QALY of £20,000. An LDL-C of 2.0 mmol/L (or equivalent non-HDL-C of 2.6 mmol/L) was the most cost-effective treatment escalation threshold in a significant proportion (38%) of probabilistic simulations and produced more health. At this threshold, the model predicted that 42% of people with CVD would require combination therapy with ezetimibe while 19% would require an injectable drug such as inclisiran. At NICE's upper cost per QALY of £30,000, the most cost-effective LDL-C treatment escalation threshold was 1.7 mmol/L (or equivalent non-HDL-C of 2.2 mmol/L).

Conclusions: The results demonstrate the importance of establishing evidence of cost-effectiveness for cholesterol treatment escalation thresholds. The study's findings support the updated NICE guideline recommending a threshold of 2.0 mmol/L LDL-C (or equivalent non-HDL-C of 2.6 mmol/L) for secondary prevention of CVD.

使用马尔可夫模型和真实世界的证据来确定心血管疾病二级预防中最具成本效益的胆固醇治疗升级阈值
背景:尽管他汀类药物降低了心血管疾病(CVD)的风险,但通过进一步的胆固醇调节干预来预防CVD事件和过早死亡的临床需求仍未得到满足。对于服用他汀类药物的CVD患者,脂质治疗升级以降低低密度脂蛋白胆固醇(LDL-C)或非高密度脂蛋白胆固醇(non-HDL-C)水平可能降低CVD住院的风险并提高生存率。然而,不同胆固醇治疗升级阈值的成本-效果是不确定的。目的:本研究旨在确定正在服用他汀类药物的CVD患者升级脂质治疗的最具成本效益的胆固醇阈值,以支持2023年英国NICE CVD指南的更新。方法:采用随机对照试验(rct)原始网络荟萃分析的治疗效果、估算基线胆固醇水平的真实数据和已发表的他汀类随机对照试验荟萃分析的CVD事件发生率,建立了具有年周期长度的队列马尔可夫模型,以比较不同LDL-C治疗升级阈值(0-4.0 mmol/L)的生命周期成本和质量调整生命年(QALYs)。该模型使用了以下CVD事件:缺血性卒中;短暂性缺血发作;外周动脉疾病;心肌梗死;不稳定心绞痛;冠状血管形成;和死亡率。该模型还使用了基于证据的资源使用和成本估计,并公布了生活质量数据。基线LDL-C水平和心血管疾病住院率是通过对临床实践研究数据链(CPRD)的英国初级保健数据的定制分析来估计的,这些数据与住院患者护理(HES)和国家统计局(ONS)死亡登记相关联。结果:2013年1月1日至2020年2月28日期间,590,917名在初级保健中接受他汀类药物治疗的心血管疾病成年人(61.7%)的数据被纳入cpr - hes - ons分析。脂质治疗升级的最具成本效益的阈值是LDL-C为2.2 mmol/L(或等效的非hdl - c为2.9 mmol/L), NICE的每QALY成本较低,为20,000英镑。在概率模拟中,2.0 mmol/L的LDL-C(或等效的2.6 mmol/L的非hdl - c)是最具成本效益的治疗升级阈值,占很大比例(38%),并且产生更多的健康。在这个阈值下,该模型预测42%的CVD患者需要与依折替米贝联合治疗,而19%需要注射药物,如inclisiran。NICE的每QALY最高成本为30,000英镑,最具成本效益的LDL-C治疗升级阈值为1.7 mmol/L(或等效的非hdl - c 2.2 mmol/L)。结论:该结果表明建立胆固醇治疗升级阈值的成本-效果证据的重要性。该研究结果支持更新后的NICE指南,推荐2.0 mmol/L的LDL-C(或等效2.6 mmol/L的非hdl - c)作为心血管疾病二级预防的阈值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics and Econometrics
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy provides timely publication of cutting-edge research and expert opinion from this increasingly important field, making it a vital resource for payers, providers and researchers alike. The journal includes high quality economic research and reviews of all aspects of healthcare from various perspectives and countries, designed to communicate the latest applied information in health economics and health policy. While emphasis is placed on information with practical applications, a strong basis of underlying scientific rigor is maintained.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信