The 4S study. Implications for prescribing

Cost-effectiveness of the use of low- and high-potency statins in people at low cardiovascular risk

BACKGROUND

Although statins have been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients at low cardiovascular risk, their absolute benefit is small in the short term, which may adversely affect cost-effectiveness. We sought to determine the long-term cost-effectiveness (beyond the duration of clinical trials) of low- and high-potency statins in patients at low cardiovascular risk and to estimate the impact on Canada's publicly funded health care system.

METHODS

Using Markov modelling, we performed a cost-utility analysis in which we compared low-potency statins (fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin and simvastatin) and high-potency statins (atorvastatin and rosuvastatin) with no statins in a simulated cohort of low-risk patients over a lifetime horizon. Model outcomes included costs (in 2010 Canadian dollars), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and the cost per QALY gained.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime horizon, the cost of managing a patient at low cardiovascular risk was estimated to be about $10,100 without statins, $15,200 with low-potency statins and $16,400 with high-potency statins. The cost per QALY gained with high-potency statins (v. no statins) was $21 300; the use of low-potency statins was not considered economically attractive. These results were robust to sensitivity analyses, although their use became economically unattractive when the duration of benefit from statin use was assumed to be less than 10 years.

INTERPRETATION

Use of high-potency statins in patients at low cardiovascular risk was associated with a cost per QALY gained that was economically attractive by current standards, assuming that the benefit from statin use would continue for at least 10 years. However, the overall expenditure on statins would be substantial, and the ramifications of this practice should be carefully considered by policy-makers.

Management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the elderly: special considerations

The principles of managing type 2 diabetes mellitus in the elderly are no different from those in younger patients, but the priorities and therapeutic strategies need to be cautiously individualised. The objectives of treatment are to improve glycaemic control in a stepwise approach that involves nonpharmacological methods including diet and exercise, and pharmacological therapy including mixtures of oral antihyperglycaemic agents alone or in combination with insulin. Although the goals of treatment may be the same for elderly and younger patients, certain aspects of type 2 diabetes in the elderly require special consideration. Treatment decisions are influenced by age and life expectancy, comorbid conditions and severity of the vascular complications. Adherence to dietary therapy, physical activity, and medication regimens may be compromised by comorbid conditions and psychosocial limitations. Drug-induced hypoglycaemia has been the main consideration and the most serious potential complication. In addition, the long term macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes are a source of significant morbidity and mortality. Indeed, vascular and neuropathic complications are already present at the time of diagnosis in a significant number of patients, and the impact of improved diabetes control depends on the age and life expectancy of the patient. Age-related changes in pharmacokinetics and the potential for adverse effects and drug interactions should also be considered when choosing appropriate pharmacological therapy. In general, a conservative and stepwise approach to the treatment of the elderly patient with type 2 diabetes is suggested; treatment may be initiated with monotherapy, followed by early intervention with a combination of oral agents including a sulphonylurea as a foundation insulin secretagogue in addition to a supplemental insulin sensitiser. Insulin therapy is eventually required if significant hyperglycaemia [glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) >8%] persists despite oral combination therapy. Combination therapy with evening insulin and a long-acting sulphonylurea such as glimepiride is an effective strategy to improve hyperglycaemia in the elderly patient with type 2 diabetes in whom polypharmacy with oral agents is unsuccessful. In addition, such a regimen is simple to follow for the patient who may not be able to adhere to a more complicated insulin regimen. Hyperglycaemia in the elderly can be managed well with practical intervention and a straightforward treatment plan to enhance compliance. Optimal glycaemic control should be possible for every patient if treatment is individualised; however, strict glycaemic control may not be achievable in all patients or even desirable in many elderly patients.

Effects of lipid-lowering drugs on left ventricular function and exercise tolerance in dyslipidemic coronary patients

Previous studies suggested that certain lipid-lowering drugs such as statins suppress ubiquinone, affect mitochondrial function, and may have deleterious effect on skeletal or cardiac muscles with potentially serious clinical consequences, especially in patients with established coronary heart disease and left ventricular dysfunction. In this double-blind study, we assessed the effects of 20 mg simvastatin (S, n = 32) or 200 mg micronized fenofibrate (F, n = 32, control group) on rest and exercise left ventricular function in hypercholesterolemic survivors of a previous Q-wave acute myocardial infarction. Left ventricular radionuclide imaging was performed at rest and during submaximal exercise and global and segmental (nine segment regional wall-motion score) ejection fractions were measured before treatment and 12 weeks later. Serum ubiquinone was reduced after treatment (p = 0.03) in the S but not the F group, whereas total and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol were significantly reduced in both groups. Before treatment, mean global ejection fraction was 52.1+/-12.2% and 49.3+/-11.8% at rest in F and S patients, respectively, and increased (56.0+/-13.7% in F and 52.1+/-12.9% in S) at peak exercise (no difference between groups). After treatment, the increase in ejection fraction tended to be lower in S (0) than in F (+3.8%) but not significantly. However, ejection fraction at rest increased after treatment in S (p = 0.009) but not in F. Subgroup analyses indicated that the improvement in rest ejection fraction in S was essentially observed in patients with ejection fraction <40% (n = 8, +6%), whereas it was stable in patients with ejection fraction >40% (+1.8%). Finally, the numbers of akinetic or hypokinetic segments at rest and during exercise were not different in the two groups before and after treatment. Mean maximal exercise load (113+/-23 watts in F vs. 104+/-27 W in S before treatment) was not modified by the treatment (111+/-21 and 104+/-27 W). Thus a 12-week lipid-lowering treatment with either S or F did not negatively alter left ventricular function during exercise in dyslipidemic patients with established coronary heart disease and did not affect their ability to exercise. The improvement in left ventricular function at rest after simvastatin in patients with left ventricular dysfunction warrants confirmation in further studies with large sample size.

[Economic analysis of secondary prevention of coronary heart disease with simvastatin (Zocor) in Germany]

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery disease (CAD) has enormous financial, medical, as well as economical consequences in Germany. Important risk factors include raised total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol blood levels. The 4S Study has demonstrated the clinical effectiveness in the secondary prevention of CAD.

METHOD

Based on the health economics data of this study, we undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis of the secondary prevention of CAD with simvastatin in Germany.

RESULTS

On average, the costs per life year gained were DM 18,500.-(sensitivity analysis: DM 9,340.- to DM 29,374.-). The consequences of this result are discussed.

CONCLUSION

It is necessary from a health economists' point of view to assess the efficiency of a clinically effective measure in a standardised manner. This permits a comparison of efficiency with other, competing forms of health care, which is necessary in areas like CAD where there are different approaches to combat the disease. Simvastatin is highly efficacious in the secondary prevention of CAD in a defined patient population and, in comparison to other interventions in this area, it also proves to be cost-efficient.

Atorvastatin. A review of its pharmacology and therapeutic potential in the management of hyperlipidaemias

Atorvastatin is a synthetic HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor which lowers plasma cholesterol levels by inhibiting endogenous cholesterol synthesis. It also reduces triglyceride levels through an as yet unproven mechanism. Dose-dependent reductions in total cholesterol, low density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol and triglyceride levels have been observed with atorvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolaemia and in patients with hypertriglyceridaemia. In large trials involving patients with hypercholesterolaemia, atorvastatin produced greater reductions in total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, apolipoprotein B and triglyceride levels than lovastatin, pravastatin and simvastatin. In patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia, the combination of atorvastatin and colestipol tended to produce larger reductions in LDL-cholesterol levels and smaller reductions in triglyceride levels than atorvastatin monotherapy. Although atorvastatin induced smaller reductions in triglyceride levels and more modest increases in high density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol levels than either fenofibrate or nicotinic acid in patients with combined hyperlipidaemia, it produced larger reductions in total cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol. As with other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, the most frequently reported adverse events associated with atorvastatin are gastrointestinal effects. In comparative trials, atorvastatin had a similar adverse event profile to that of other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. Clinical data with atorvastatin are limited at present. However, with its ability to markedly reduce LDL-cholesterol levels, atorvastatin is likely to join other members of its class as a first-line agent for the treatment of patients with hypercholesterolaemia, if changes in lipid levels with atorvastatin convert to reductions in CHD mortality and morbidity. Atorvastatin may be particularly suitable for patients with heterozygous or homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia because of the marked reductions in LDL-cholesterol experienced with the drug. Additionally, because of its triglyceride-lowering properties, atorvastatin appears to have the potential to become an appropriate treatment for patients with combined hyperlipidaemia or hypertriglyceridaemia.