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.

Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: cohort study on trial protocols and journal publications

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the planning of subgroup analyses in protocols of randomised controlled trials and the agreement with corresponding full journal publications. DESIGN: Cohort of protocols of randomised controlled trial and subsequent full journal publications. SETTING: Six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. DATA SOURCES: 894 protocols of randomised controlled trial involving patients approved by participating research ethics committees between 2000 and 2003 and 515 subsequent full journal publications. RESULTS: Of 894 protocols of randomised controlled trials, 252 (28.2%) included one or more planned subgroup analyses. Of those, 17 (6.7%) provided a clear hypothesis for at least one subgroup analysis, 10 (4.0%) anticipated the direction of a subgroup effect, and 87 (34.5%) planned a statistical test for interaction. Industry sponsored trials more often planned subgroup analyses compared with investigator sponsored trials (195/551 (35.4%) v 57/343 (16.6%), P<0.001). Of 515 identified journal publications, 246 (47.8%) reported at least one subgroup analysis. In 81 (32.9%) of the 246 publications reporting subgroup analyses, authors stated that subgroup analyses were prespecified, but this was not supported by 28 (34.6%) corresponding protocols. In 86 publications, authors claimed a subgroup effect, but only 36 (41.9%) corresponding protocols reported a planned subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Subgroup analyses are insufficiently described in the protocols of randomised controlled trials submitted to research ethics committees, and investigators rarely specify the anticipated direction of subgroup effects. More than one third of statements in publications of randomised controlled trials about subgroup prespecification had no documentation in the corresponding protocols. Definitive judgments regarding credibility of claimed subgroup effects are not possible without access to protocols and analysis plans of randomised controlled trials.