Cost-effectiveness of non-statin lipid-lowering therapies as an add-on to statins for achieving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol therapeutic targets in very high-risk patients in the Spanish setting.
Our study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of non-statin lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) in patients with very-high cardiovascular risk, based on their relative efficacy and current yearly treatment costs in the Spanish setting.
We generated a cohort of patients in secondary prevention with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels >100 mg/dL using a Monte Carlo simulation. Based on the relative LDL-C reductions described in the literature for each studied non-statin LLTs, we estimated the percentages of cohort patients that would achieve the 2019/2025 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) dyslipidemia guidelines treatment targets (LDL-C levels <55 mg/dL and ≥50% reduction from baseline; defined as effectively treated patients). Derived, the annual costs per effectively treated patient were calculated.
Evolocumab 140 mg every two weeks (Q2W), followed by alirocumab 150 mg Q2W were modeled to be the most efficacious non-statin regimens, with 80% and 70% of effectively treated patients, respectively. The results for inclisiran and the other studied doses of alirocumab were modeled to be more modest (20% to 33%). The mean annual cost per patient effectively treated with evolocumab 140 mg Q2W was 6,200.1€, compared with 7,126.5€ for alirocumab 150 mg Q2W, 15,159.1€ with alirocumab 75 mg Q2W and 19,254.9€ with alirocumab 300 mg every month. Inclisiran resulted in higher costs both during the first year (31,329.1€) and the subsequent time scenarios (26,107.6€ and 22,974.7€ during average first two and five years, respectively).
No head-to-head clinical trials comparing non-statin LLTs are available. We only considered the published direct pharmacological costs in the Spanish setting.
In our simulation study, evolocumab 140 mg Q2W resulted in similar (versus alirocumab 150 mg Q2W) or better cost-effectiveness in achieving 2019/2025 ESC/EAS LDL-C targets for secondary prevention patients compared to other LLTs.
We generated a cohort of patients in secondary prevention with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels >100 mg/dL using a Monte Carlo simulation. Based on the relative LDL-C reductions described in the literature for each studied non-statin LLTs, we estimated the percentages of cohort patients that would achieve the 2019/2025 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) dyslipidemia guidelines treatment targets (LDL-C levels <55 mg/dL and ≥50% reduction from baseline; defined as effectively treated patients). Derived, the annual costs per effectively treated patient were calculated.
Evolocumab 140 mg every two weeks (Q2W), followed by alirocumab 150 mg Q2W were modeled to be the most efficacious non-statin regimens, with 80% and 70% of effectively treated patients, respectively. The results for inclisiran and the other studied doses of alirocumab were modeled to be more modest (20% to 33%). The mean annual cost per patient effectively treated with evolocumab 140 mg Q2W was 6,200.1€, compared with 7,126.5€ for alirocumab 150 mg Q2W, 15,159.1€ with alirocumab 75 mg Q2W and 19,254.9€ with alirocumab 300 mg every month. Inclisiran resulted in higher costs both during the first year (31,329.1€) and the subsequent time scenarios (26,107.6€ and 22,974.7€ during average first two and five years, respectively).
No head-to-head clinical trials comparing non-statin LLTs are available. We only considered the published direct pharmacological costs in the Spanish setting.
In our simulation study, evolocumab 140 mg Q2W resulted in similar (versus alirocumab 150 mg Q2W) or better cost-effectiveness in achieving 2019/2025 ESC/EAS LDL-C targets for secondary prevention patients compared to other LLTs.
Authors
Climente-Martí Climente-Martí, García-González García-González, Torres-Bondia Torres-Bondia, Lozano Lozano, Gómez-Navarro Gómez-Navarro
View on Pubmed