Comparing impact and cost-effectiveness of primary prevention strategies for lipid-lowering.

BACKGROUND: Lipid-lowering therapy is costly but effective at reducing coronary heart disease (CHD) risk. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness and public health impact of Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) guidelines and compare with a range of risk- and age-based alternative strategies. DESIGN: The CHD Policy Model, a Markov-type cost-effectiveness model. DATA SOURCES: National surveys (1999 to 2004), vital statistics (2000), the Framingham Heart Study (1948 to 2000), other published data, and a direct survey of statin costs (2008). TARGET POPULATION: U.S. population age 35 to 85 years. Time Horizon: 2010 to 2040. PERSPECTIVE: Health care system. INTERVENTION: Lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins). OUTCOME MEASURE: Incremental cost-effectiveness. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Full adherence to ATP III primary prevention guidelines would require starting (9.7 million) or intensifying (1.4 million) statin therapy for 11.1 million adults and would prevent 20,000 myocardial infarctions and 10,000 CHD deaths per year at an annual net cost of $3.6 billion ($42,000/QALY) if low-intensity statins cost $2.11 per pill. The ATP III guidelines would be preferred over alternative strategies if society is willing to pay $50,000/QALY and statins cost $1.54 to $2.21 per pill. At higher statin costs, ATP III is not cost-effective; at lower costs, more liberal statin-prescribing strategies would be preferred; and at costs less than $0.10 per pill, treating all persons with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels greater than 3.4 mmol/L (>130 mg/dL) would yield net cost savings. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Results are sensitive to the assumptions that LDL cholesterol becomes less important as a risk factor with increasing age and that little disutility results from taking a pill every day. LIMITATION: Randomized trial evidence for statin effectiveness is not available for all subgroups. CONCLUSION: The ATP III guidelines are relatively cost-effective and would have a large public health impact if implemented fully in the United States. Alternate strategies may be preferred, however, depending on the cost of statins and how much society is willing to pay for better health outcomes. FUNDING: Flight Attendants' Medical Research Institute and the Swanson Family Fund. The Framingham Heart Study and Framingham Offspring Study are conducted and supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Cost-effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparin for secondary prophylaxis of cancer-related venous thromboembolism.

Although extended secondary prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin was recently shown to be more effective than warfarin for cancer-related venous thromboembolism, its cost-effectiveness compared to traditional prophylaxis with warfarin is uncertain. We built a decision analytic model to evaluate the clinical and economic outcomes of a 6-month course of low-molecular-weight heparin or warfarin therapy in 65-year-old patients with cancer-related venous thromboembolism. We used probability estimates and utilities reported in the literature and published cost data. Using a US societal perspective, we compared strategies based on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and lifetime costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of low-molecular-weight heparin compared with warfarin was 149,865 dollars/QALY. Low-molecular-weight heparin yielded a quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.097 QALYs at the cost of 15,329 dollars. Overall, 46% (7108 dollars) of the total costs associated with low-molecular-weight heparin were attributable to pharmacy costs. Although the low-molecular-weigh heparin strategy achieved a higher incremental quality-adjusted life expectancy than the warfarin strategy (difference of 0.051 QALYs), this clinical benefit was offset by a substantial cost increment of 7,609 dollars. Cost-effectiveness results were sensitive to variation of the early mortality risks associated with low-molecular-weight heparin and warfarin and the pharmacy costs for low-molecular-weight heparin. Based on the best available evidence, secondary prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin is more effective than warfarin for cancer-related venous thromboembolism. However, because of the substantial pharmacy costs of extended low-molecular-weight heparin prophylaxis in the US, this treatment is relatively expensive compared with warfarin.