Article

Cost-effectiveness of primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with atorvastatin in type 2 diabetes: results from the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS).

LSE Health and Social Care, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK.
Diabetologia (Impact Factor: 6.88). 05/2007; 50(4):733-40. DOI: 10.1007/s00125-006-0561-4
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We estimated the cost-effectiveness of atorvastatin treatment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes using data from the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS).
A total of 2,838 patients, who were aged 40 to 75 years and had type 2 diabetes without a documented history of cardiovascular disease and without elevated LDL-cholesterol, were recruited from 32 centres in the UK and Ireland and randomly allocated to atorvastatin 10 mg daily (n = 1,428) or placebo (n = 1,410). These subjects were followed-up for a median period of 3.9 years. Direct treatment costs and effectiveness were analysed to provide estimates of cost per endpoint-free year over the trial period for alternative definitions of endpoint, and of cost per life-year gained and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over a patient's lifetime.
Over the trial period, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated to be 7,608 pounds per year free of any CARDS primary endpoint; the ICER was calculated to be 4,896 pounds per year free of any cardiovascular endpoint and 4,120 pounds per year free of any study endpoint. Over lifetime, the incremental cost per life-year gained was 5,107 pounds and the cost per QALY was 6,471 pounds (costs and benefits both discounted at 3.5%).
Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with atorvastatin is a cost-effective intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes, with the ICER for this intervention falling within the current acceptance threshold ( 20,000 pounds per QALY) specified by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).

Full-text

Available from: Andrew Neil, Dec 19, 2013
0 Followers
 · 
110 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus, mortality rates vary substantially. We sought to examine the inclusion and exclusion criteria of these RCTs to explore relationships with mortality. MEDLINE database was searched from August 1980 through March 2011. Selection criterion included published RCTs of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus of at least 1000 patients, reporting all-cause mortality and having follow-up duration of at least 1 year. Twenty-two trials were eligible. Annualized mortality rates were derived. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were tabulated for each trial. Trials were categorized in 4 groups according to annual mortality rates: <1, ≥1 to <2, ≥2 to <4, and ≥4 per 100 patient-years. The analysis cohort included 91842 patients and 6837 deaths. Mortality rates ranged from 0.28 to 8.24 per 100 patient-years. Patients enrolled in the highest mortality category were more likely to be older and had longer diabetes duration and higher blood pressure. The selection for hypertension was common in the low- as well as high-mortality trials. Although the mortality rates were higher in RCTs with prior cardiovascular morbidity, the selection for chronic kidney disease-defined by either higher serum creatinine or lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and/or the presence of proteinuria-was associated with the highest mortality rates. In this analysis of RCTs of type 2 diabetes mellitus, a 29-fold difference in annualized mortality was observed. In these RCTs, selection for renal disease, defined by either decline in renal function or presence of proteinuria, portends important mortality risk. (J Am Heart Assoc. 2012;1:8-15.) URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00303979.
    Journal of the American Heart Association 02/2012; 1(1):8-15. DOI:10.1161/JAHA.111.000059 · 2.88 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Statins have proven efficacy in the reduction of cardiovascular events, but the financial impact of its widespread use can be substantial. Objective: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of three statin dosing schemes in the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS) perspective. Methods: We developed a Markov model to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of low, intermediate and high intensity dose regimens in secondary and four primary scenarios (5%, 10%, 15% and 20% ten-year risk) of prevention of cardiovascular events. Regimens with expected low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction below 30% (e.g. simvastatin 10mg) were considered as low dose; between 30-40%, (atorvastatin 10mg, simvastatin 40mg), intermediate dose; and above 40% (atorvastatin 20-80mg, rosuvastatin 20mg), high-dose statins. Effectiveness data were obtained from a systematic review with 136,000 patients. National data were used to estimate utilities and costs (expressed as International Dollars - Int$). A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold equal to the Brazilian gross domestic product per capita (circa Int$11,770) was applied. Results: Low dose was dominated by extension in the primary prevention scenarios. In the five scenarios, the ICER of intermediate dose was below Int$10,000 per QALY. The ICER of the high versus intermediate dose comparison was above Int$27,000 per QALY in all scenarios. In the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, intermediate dose had a probability above 50% of being cost-effective with ICERs between Int$ 9,000-20,000 per QALY in all scenarios. Conclusions: Considering a reasonable WTP threshold, intermediate dose statin therapy is economically attractive, and should be a priority intervention in prevention of cardiovascular events in Brazil.
    Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia 11/2014; DOI:10.5935/abc.20140173 · 1.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the impact of adherence to statins on nonfatal coronary artery disease (CAD). Statins reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality after 1-2 years of continuous treatment. Studies have shown that <40% of patients take > or =80% of prescribed doses 1 year after starting therapy and that approximately half discontinue medication within 6 months of starting therapy. A cohort of 20 543 patients was reconstructed using the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec databases. Patients aged 50-64 years, without cardiovascular disease, and newly treated with statins between 1998 and 2000 were eligible. A nested case-control design was used to study nonfatal CAD. Every case was matched with 20 randomly selected controls. The adherence level was defined as the percentage of the prescribed medication doses used over a specified period and classified as > or =90% or <90%. Rate ratios (RR) of nonfatal CAD were determined through conditional logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic status, diabetes and hypertension. The mean patient age was 58 years, 45% had hypertension and 19% had diabetes. Men represented 37% of the cohort. Among patients followed for >1 year, adherence of > or =90% was associated with fewer nonfatal CAD events (RR 0.81; 0.67, 0.97) compared with adherence <90%. In the multivariate model, male gender (RR 1.37; 1.16, 1.63), welfare recipients (RR 1.24; 1.04, 1.48), newly diagnosed hypertension (RR 3.54; 2.62, 4.77) and newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus (RR 1.97; 1.20, 3.24) were risk factors for CAD. The incidence of nonfatal CAD events decreases when >90% of the prescribed medications is used over at least 1 year.
    British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 06/2007; 63(6):698-708. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02828.x · 3.69 Impact Factor