Koo Wilson

The economic burden of stroke in the United Kingdom.

AbstractAim: To estimate the cost of treating stroke in the UK. Methods: A cost-of-illness model was constructed to estimate stroke-related costs over a 5-year period. The cost estimates were based on data from a large, randomised, prospective study comparing alternative strategies of stroke care. The study collected detailed data on resource use in hospital, primary care, healthcare contacts, and utilisation of social services over a period of 1 year following stroke. A Markov framework was used to extrapolate 1-year costs over 5 years. Results: The model estimated that, for every patient who experiences a stroke, the cost to the NHS in the UK is £15 306 over 5 years and, when informal care costs are included, the amount increases to £29 405 (2001/2002 prices). The robustness of the cost findings was explored with the use of sensitivity analysis. This focused on the key variables of rates of recurrent stroke, the estimated acute costs, and costs attached to institution and home care. Conclusion: As well as being a considerable cause of morbidity and mortality, stroke is also a huge cost burden to both the UK’s NHS and the carers of stroke victims.

Cost-effectiveness of varenicline compared with nicotine patches for smoking cessation--results from four European countries.

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the cost-effectiveness of varenicline with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for smoking cessation in four European countries (Belgium, France, Sweden and the UK). METHODS Markov simulations, using the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes (BENESCO) model, were performed. We simulated the incidence of four smoking-related morbidities: lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease and stroke. The model computes quality-adjusted life-years gained and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Incremental cost-utility ratios were calculated, adopting a lifetime perspective. Efficacy data were obtained from a randomized open-label trial: Week 52 continuous abstinence rates were 26.1% for varenicline and 20.3% for NRT. RESULTS The analyses imply that for countries analysed, smoking cessation using varenicline versus NRT was associated with reduced smoking-related morbidity and mortality. The number of morbidities avoided, per 1000 smokers attempting to quit, ranged from 9.7 in Belgium to 6.5 in the UK. The number of quality-adjusted life-years gained, per 1000 smokers, was 23 (Belgium); 19.5 (France); 29.9 (Sweden); and 23.7 (UK). In all base-case simulations (except France), varenicline dominated (more effective and cost saving) NRT regarding costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained; for France the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 2803. CONCLUSION This cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that since varenicline treatment was more effective, the result was increased healthcare cost savings in Belgium, Sweden and the UK. Our results suggest that funding varenicline as a smoking cessation aid is justifiable from a healthcare resource allocation perspective.

A Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of the Myocardial Ischaemia Reduction with Aggressive Cholesterol Lowering (MIRACL) Study in the United Kingdom

AbstractObjective: To determine the short-term healthcare costs associated with intensive lipid lowering with atorvastatin initiated within 24–96 hours of the occurrence of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in patients in the UK. Methods: Patient-level clinical outcome data from the Myocardial Ischaemia Reduction with Aggressive Cholesterol Lowering (MIRACL) trial and standard cost data were used to compare the total expected 16-week cost per patient on atorvastatin 80 mg/day versus placebo. Clinical outcomes assessed included the following: death; cardiac arrest with resuscitation; nonfatal myocardial infarction; worsening angina pectoris with objective evidence of myocardial ischaemia requiring rehospitalisation; surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularisation; nonfatal stroke; hospitalisation for angina without objective evidence of myocardial ischaemia; and new or worsening congestive heart failure requiring rehospitalisation. All relevant direct medical costs from the perspective of the NHS were considered. Results: The total expected cost was £784.05 per patient in the placebo cohort and £851.59 per patient in the atorvastatin cohort, resulting in an incremental cost of £67.54 per patient in the atorvastatin group. The cost per event avoided was £1762.04. A third of the cost of atorvastatin treatment was offset within 16 weeks by the cost savings resulting from the reduction in the number of events in the atorvastatin cohort compared with the placebo cohort. Conclusion: The clinical benefits of short-term intensive atorvastatin treatment administered after ACS is attainable through a marginal increase in ‘upfront’ costs

A Model to Assess the Cost Effectiveness of Statins in Achieving the UK National Service Framework Target Cholesterol Levels

AbstractBackground: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a public health priority in theUK. The National Service Framework (NSF) has set standards for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of CHD, which include the use of cholesterol-lowering agents aimed at achieving targets of blood total cholesterol (TC) < 5.0 mmol/L and low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) < 3.0 mmol/L. In order to achieve these targets cost effectively, prescribers need to make an informed choice from the range of statins available. Aim: To estimate the average and relative cost effectiveness of atorvastatin, fluvastatin, pravastatin and simvastatin in achieving the NSF LDL-C and TC targets. Design: Model-based economic evaluation. Methods: An economic model was constructed to estimate the number of patients achieving the NSF targets for LDL-C and TC at each dose of statin, and to calculate the average drug cost and incremental drug cost per patient achieving the target levels. The population baseline LDL-C and TC, and drug efficacy and drug costs were taken from previously published data. Estimates of the distribution of patients receiving each dose of statin were derived from the UK national DINLINK database.Results:Methods: The estimated annual drug cost per 1000 patients treated with atorvastatin was £289 000, with simvastatin £315 000, with pravastatin £333 000 and with fluvastatin £167 000. The percentages of patients achieving target are 74.4%, 46.4%, 28.4% and 13.2% for atorvastatin, simvastatin, pravastatin and fluvastatin, respectively. Incremental drug cost per extra patient treated to LDL-C and TC targets compared with fluvastatin were £198 and £226 for atorvastatin, £443 and £567 for simvastatin and £1089 and £2298 for pravastatin, using 2002 drug costs. Conclusions: As a result of its superior efficacy, atorvastatin generates a favourable cost-effectiveness profile as measured by drug cost per patient treated to LDL-C and TC targets. For a given drug budget, more patients would achieve NSF LDL-C and TC targets with atorvastatin than with any of the other statins examined.

Impact of preprocedural mitral regurgitation upon mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe aortic stenosis

Objective To identify the effects of preprocedural significant mitral regurgitation (MR) and change in MR severity upon mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using the Edwards SAPIEN system. Methods A retrospective analysis of 316 consecutive patients undergoing TAVI for aortic stenosis at a single centre in the UK between March 2008 and January 2013. Patients were stratified into two groups according to severity of MR: ≥grade 3 were classed as significant and ≤grade 2 were non-significant. Change in MR severity was assessed by comparison of baseline and 30-day echocardiograms. Results 60 patients had significant MR prior to TAVI (19.0%). These patients were of higher perioperative risk (logistic EuroScore 28.7±16.6% vs 20.3±10.7%, p=0.004) and were more dyspnoeic (New York Heart Association class IV 20.0% vs 7.4%, p=0.014). Patients with significant preprocedural MR displayed greater 12-month and cumulative mortality (28.3% vs 20.2%, log-rank p=0.024). Significant MR was independently associated with mortality (HR 4.94 (95% CI 2.07 to 11.8), p<0.001). Of the 60 patients with significant MR only 47.1% had grade 3–4 MR at 30 days (p<0.001). Patients in whom MR improved had lower mortality than those in whom it deteriorated (log-rank p=0.05). Conclusions Significant MR is frequently seen in patients undergoing TAVI and is independently associated with increased all-cause mortality. Yet almost half also exhibit significant improvements in MR severity. Those who improve have better outcomes, and future work could focus upon identifying factors independently associated with such an improvement.

Cost effectiveness of varenicline versus bupropion and unaided cessation for smoking cessation in a cohort of Finnish adult smokers

Abstract Objective: To assess the cost effectiveness of varenicline compared with bupropion or unaided cessation for smoking cessation in Finnish adult smokers. Research design and methods: The BENESCO (BENEfits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes) Markov model was used to follow a hypothetical cohort of smokers making a single quit attempt over a lifetime. Gender and age-specific data on the incidence and prevalence of five smoking-related diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], lung cancer, coronary heart disease [CHD], stroke and asthma exacerbations) were included in the model. Life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total treatment costs and the lifetime cumulative incidence of these parameters were the primary outcomes evaluated, and they were compared for varenicline versus bupropion and varenicline versus unaided cessation. The primary data were derived from Finnish publications and databases. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the base-case model. Results: The treatment cohort comprised 229 301 smokers making a quit attempt. In the lifetime simulation, use of varenicline prevented 1965 and 5057 additional cases of smoking-related disease, and 1184 and 3047 deaths attributable to smoking, when compared with bupropion and unaided cessation, respectively. Compared with bupropion and unaided cessation varenicline treatment yielded 4392 and 11 303 additional LYs (4851 and 12 485 QALYs), respectively. Varenicline resulted in cost savings of 15 million and 43 million euros (€) compared with bupropion and unaided cessation, respectively. In the 20-year time horizon analysis, varenicline yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €8791/QALY and €7791/QALY gained in comparison to bupropion and unaided cessation, respectively. Sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of the base-case results for varenicline. Conclusion: Varenicline dominated over its comparators, i.e. it was more effective and resulted in cost saving compared with bupropion and unaided cessation.

A cost-effectiveness model of smoking cessation based on a randomised controlled trial of varenicline versus placebo in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Objectives: Smoking is an important risk factor in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A recent clinical trial demonstrated the efficacy of varenicline versus placebo as an aid to smoking cessation in patients with COPD. This study examines the cost-effectiveness of varenicline from the perspective of the healthcare systems of Spain (base case), the UK, France, Germany, Greece and Italy. Methods: A Markov model was developed to determine the cost-effectiveness of varenicline as an aid to smoking cessation, compared to a placebo, in a COPD population. Cost-effectiveness was determined by the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Results: In the Spanish base case varenicline had an incremental cost of €1021/person for an average of 0.24 life years (0.17 QALYs), gained over the lifetime of a cohort of COPD patients, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €5,566. In the other European countries, the ICER varied between €4,519 (UK) and €10,167 (Italy). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested varenicline had a high probability (>95%) of being cost-effective at a threshold of €30,000/QALY. Conclusions: Varenicline is expected to be a cost-effective aid to smoking cessation in COPD patients in all of the countries studied.

An economic evaluation based on a randomized placebo-controlled trial of varenicline in smokers with cardiovascular disease: results for Belgium, Spain, Portugal, and Italy.

Background: An estimated 17.2% of patients continue to smoke following diagnosis of cardiovascular disease (CVD). To reduce the risk of further morbidity or mortality in cardiovascular patients, smoking cessation has been shown to reduce the risk of mortality by 36% and myocardial infarction by 32%. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term health and economic consequences of smoking cessation in patients with CVD. Design and methods: Results of a randomized clinical trial comparing varenicline plus counselling vs. placebo plus counselling were extrapolated using a Markov model to simulate the lifetime costs and health consequences of smoking cessation in patients with stable CVD. For the base case, we considered a payer’s perspective including direct costs attributed to the healthcare provider, measuring cumulative life years (LY) and quality adjusted life (QALY) years as outcome measures. Secondary analyses were conducted from a societal perspective, evaluating lost productivity due to premature mortality. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were also undertaken. Results were analysed for Belgium, Spain, Portugal, and Italy. Results: Varenicline plus counselling was associated with a gain in LY and QALY across all countries; relative to placebo plus counselling. From a payer’s perspective, incremental cost effectiveness ratios were €6120 (Belgium), €5151 (Spain), €5357 (Portugal), and €5433 (Italy) per QALY gained. From a societal perspective, varenicline in addition to counselling was less costly than placebo and counselling in all cases. Sensitivity analyses showed little sensitivity in outcomes to model assumptions or uncertainty in model parameters. Conclusions: Varenicline in addition to counselling is cost-effective compared to placebo and counselling in smokers with CVD.

A review of cost-effectiveness of varenicline and comparison of cost-effectiveness of treatments for major smoking-related morbidities:

RATIONALE This review aims to examine economic evaluations of varenicline, to compare the reported cost-effectiveness of varenicline with that of treatments for major smoking-related diseases and to evaluate the findings for decision making. METHODS A literature search was performed to identify published articles in English indexed in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2009), which includes the Economic Evaluation Database. Additional sources also were searched to identify unpublished varenicline studies, including conference abstracts. The search for varenicline studies was limited from 2006 to October 2009; searches for all other types of studies were limited from 1990 to October 2009. RESULTS The search yielded a total of 20 relevant economic evaluations of varenicline. In addition, 37 reviews of economic evaluations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, non-small cell lung cancer and cardiovascular disease, as well as studies evaluating the impact of economic rewarding were considered in this review. From these identified economic evaluations, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for varenicline ranged from dominance (more effective and cost saving) to €18,582 per quality-adjusted life-year (including indirect costs). These estimates appeared substantially lower when compared with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios reported for secondary prevention of smoking-related diseases, which in some cases were as high as €66,218 per quality-adjusted life-year. CONCLUSIONS Varenicline appears to be cost-effective from the perspective of both health care payers and employers, because of reduced health care consumption and costs. The cost-effectiveness of varenicline also compares favourably to that of interventions recommended for the treatment and prevention of smoking-related diseases.

Cost-effectiveness of eplerenone in patients with systolic heart failure and mild symptoms

Aim In the Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization and Survival Study in Heart Failure (EMPHASIS-HF), aldosterone blockade with eplerenone decreased mortality and hospitalisation in patients with mild symptoms (New York Heart Association class II) and chronic systolic heart failure (HF). The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of eplerenone in the treatment of these patients in the UK and Spain. Methods and results Results from the EMPHASIS-HF trial were used to develop a discrete-event simulation model estimating lifetime direct costs and effects (life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained) of the addition of eplerenone to standard care among patients with chronic systolic HF and mild symptoms. Eplerenone plus standard care compared with standard care alone increased lifetime direct costs per patient by £4284 for the UK and €7358 for Spain, with additional quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.22 QALYs for the UK and 1.33 QALYs for Spain. Mean lifetime costs were £3520 per QALY in the UK and €5532 per QALY in Spain. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested a 100% likelihood of eplerenone being regarded as cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY (UK) or €30 000 per QALY (Spain). Conclusions By currently accepted standards of value for money, the addition of eplerenone to optimal medical therapy for patients with chronic systolic HF and mild symptoms is likely to be cost-effective.