Lucie Kutikova

Estimating the economic burden of cardiovascular events in patients receiving lipid-modifying therapy in the UK

Objectives To characterise the costs to the UK National Health Service of cardiovascular (CV) events among individuals receiving lipid-modifying therapy. Design Retrospective cohort study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink records from 2006 to 2012 to identify individuals with their first and second CV-related hospitalisations (first event and second event cohorts). Within-person differences were used to estimate CV-related outcomes. Setting Patients in the UK who had their first CV event between January 2006 and March 2012. Participants Patients ≥18 years who had a CV event and received at least 2 lipid-modifying therapy prescriptions within 180 days beforehand. Primary and secondary outcome measures Direct medical costs (2014 £) were estimated in 3 periods: baseline (pre-event), acute (6 months afterwards) and long-term (subsequent 30 months). Primary outcomes included incremental costs, resource usage and total costs per period. Results There were 24 093 patients in the first event cohort of whom 5274 were included in the second event cohort. The mean incremental acute CV event costs for the first event and second event cohorts were: coronary artery bypass graft/percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (CABG/PTCA) £5635 and £5823, myocardial infarction £4275 and £4301, ischaemic stroke £3512 and £4572, heart failure £2444 and £3461, unstable angina £2179 and £2489 and transient ischaemic attack £1537 and £1814. The mean incremental long-term costs were: heart failure £848 and £2829, myocardial infarction £922 and £1385, ischaemic stroke £973 and £682, transient ischaemic attack £705 and £1692, unstable angina £328 and £677, and CABG/PTCA £−368 and £599. Hospitalisation accounted for 95% of acute and 61% of long-term incremental costs. Higher comorbidity was associated with higher long-term costs. Conclusions Revascularisation and myocardial infarction were associated with the highest incremental costs following a CV event. On the basis of real-world data, the economic burden of CV events in the UK is substantial, particularly among those with greater comorbidity burden.

Cost analysis: treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in five European countries

Abstract Objective: Cost-analysis comparing darbepoetin-alfa (DARB), epoetin-alfa (EPO-A), and epoetin-beta (EPO-B) for treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia in Belgium concluded that costs for DARB-treated patients were significantly lower than costs for EPO-A- or EPO-B-treated patients. The objective of the present study was to extend the Belgian analysis to Austria, France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain, estimating differences in costs between erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in each country. Methods: Differences in epidemiology and treatment patterns between countries were adjusted using data from Eurostat, national cancer registries, IMS sales data, and reimbursement and treatment guidelines. Belgian unit costs were replaced with country-specific costs. Costs were analyzed using a mixed-effects model stratifying for propensity score quintiles. Results: All populations were comparable to the Belgian population in terms of age, gender, ESA, and blood transfusions use. After adjusting for country-specific chemotherapy use and cancer incidence, total management costs per patient (Euro, 2010) were 19–26% (France, Spain) lower with DARB compared with EPO-A (p < 0.0001) and 20–36% (Portugal, Austria) compared with EPO-B (p < 0.01). Anemia-related costs with DARB were between 12% (Portugal; p = 0.0235) and 38% (Italy; p < 0.0001) lower compared with EPO-A (p < 0.01; all remaining countries), and between 13% (Austria; p = 0.064) and 19% (Portugal; p = 0.0028) lower compared with EPO-B (p < 0.05; all remaining countries except Italy; p = 0.0935). Limitations: Not all differences could be accounted for by a lack of country-specific data; however, the potential under- and over-estimation of costs should be similar for all three ESAs. Conclusions: These findings are in line with the Belgian analysis. In all countries, total and anemia-related costs were lowest in patients receiving DARB vs EPO-A or EPO-B. This study demonstrates the feasibility of adapting real-life country-specific data to other settings, adjusting for differences in patients’ characteristics and treatment strategies. These findings should be valuable in healthcare decision-making in oncology patients treated in each of the countries studied.

A systematic literature review comparing methods for the measurement of patient persistence and adherence

Abstract Objectives: A systematic literature review was conducted comparing different approaches estimating persistence and adherence in chronic diseases with polypharmacy of oral and subcutaneous treatments. Methods: This work followed published guidance on performing systematic reviews. Twelve electronic databases and grey literature sources were used to identify studies and guidelines for persistence and adherence of oral and subcutaneous therapies in hypercholesterolemia, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Outcomes of interest of each persistence and adherence data collection and calculation method included pros: accurate, easy to use, inexpensive; and cons: inaccurate, difficult to use, expensive. Results: A total of 4158 records were retrieved up to March 2017. We included 16 observational studies, 5 systematic reviews and 7 guidelines, in patients with hypercholesterolemia (n = 8), type 2 diabetes (n = 4), hypertension (n = 2), rheumatoid arthritis (n = 1) and mixed patient populations (n = 13). Pharmacy and medical records offer an accurate, easy and inexpensive data collection method. Pill count, medication event monitoring systems (MEMs), self-report questionnaires and observer report are easy to use. MEMS and biochemical monitoring tests can be expensive. Proportion of days covered (PDC) was recommended as a gold standard calculation method for long-term treatments. PDC avoids use of days’ supply in calculation, hence is more accurate compared to medication possession ratio (MPR) to assess adherence to treatments in chronic diseases. Conclusions: Decisions on what method to use should be based on considerations of the route of medication administration, the resources available, setting and aim of the assessment. Combining different methods may provide wider insights into adherence and persistence, including patient behavior.

Prediction of cardiovascular risk in patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia

Aims Patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) have an elevated cardiovascular (CV) risk. The objective of this analysis was to adjust CV risk equations derived in non-FH populations with hyperlipidaemia to predict CV risk in FH patients, and then to use these adjusted CV risk equations in a decision analytic model in order to predict lifetime CV risk in FH patients. Methods and results A literature search of publications reporting CV risk in FH patients identified the publication with the most credible estimate of CV risk increase. A CV event rate ratio (RR) (FH vs. non-FH) was derived from reported odds ratios by pooling treated and untreated patients. Predicted CV event risks based on non-FH risk equations were adjusted with the RR to reflect CV risk in FH patients. A decision analytic model incorporating these adjusted risk equations was used to predict 10-year and lifetime CV risk in FH patients. Combining the derived RR of 7.1 (95% CI: 5.7-8.7) with the predicted CV risks in a decision analytic model yielded 10-year and lifetime risk estimates of 45% and 88% in FH patients based on the RUTHERFORD-2 trial population. Based on the initial (cross-sectional) RR of 7.1, FH patients were predicted to have 3.9 times more events over their lifetime than non-FH patients with a similar risk profile. Conclusion The CV risk in FH is high and represents an unmet medical need for patients. Increased efforts for better diagnosis and management of FH should be employed to improve patient outcomes.

Management of lipid-lowering therapy in patients with cardiovascular events in the UK: a retrospective cohort study

Objectives To describe low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol management and lipid-lowering treatment patterns in patients with a cardiovascular (CV) event. Design Retrospective cohort study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink records linked with Hospital Episode Statistics data. Setting Routine clinical practice in the UK from 2006 to 2012. Participants Individuals ≥18 years were selected at their first CV-related hospitalisation (first event cohort) if they had received ≥2 lipid-lowering therapy prescriptions within 180 days beforehand. Patients were stratified into four mutually exclusive subgroups based on the presence or absence of vascular disease and of diabetes. Those with a second CV hospitalisation within 36 months were included in a separate cohort (second event cohort). Primary and secondary outcome measures LDL levels in the year prior to the CV event and 12 months later as well as measures of adherence to lipid-lowering therapy during the 12 months after the CV hospitalisation. Results There were 24 093 patients in the first event cohort, of whom 5274 were included in the second event cohort. Most received moderate intensity statins at baseline and 12 months. Among the four first event cohort subgroups at baseline, the proportions with an LDL of <1.8 mmol/L was similar between the two diabetic cohorts (36% to 38%) and were higher than those in the two non-diabetic cohorts (17% to 22%) and in the second event cohort (31%). An incremental 5% to 9% had an LDL below 1.8 mmol/L at 12 months, suggesting intensification of therapy. The proportion of adherent patients (medication possession ratio of≥0.8) was highest for statins, ranging from 68% to 72%. For ezetimibe, the range was 65% to 70%, and for fibrates, it was 48% to 62%. Conclusions Despite the existence of effective therapies for lowering cholesterol, patients do not reach achievable LDL targets.

Characterization and cholesterol management in patients with cardiovascular events and/or type 2 diabetes in the Netherlands

Abstract Objective: To describe clinical characteristics and cholesterol management of patients with cardiovascular events (CVEs) and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with high low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) > 1.8 mmol/L in the Netherlands. Research design and methods: From the PHARMO Database Network a cross-sectional cohort was constructed. The descriptive study included patients on lipid modifying therapy (LMT) in 2009, classified as high cardiovascular risk based on a history of T2DM or CVE, with 2010 LDL-C levels above 1.8 mmol/L (2011 European Society of Cardiology [ESC] target). Sub-cohorts were created: T2DM + CVE from the T2DM cohort and multiple CVE from the CVE only cohort. Main outcome measures: Clinical characteristics and drug treatment were determined at the time of the last LDL-C measurement in 2010. Results: Of 10,864 very high risk patients, 66% had T2DM, 37% of whom also had CVE. In the CVE only cohort (34%), 18% had multiple events. More regular check-ups skewed inclusion towards diabetes patients. T2DM vs. CVE cohort characteristics were: 53% vs. 63% male, 42% vs. 27% obese, 19% vs. 24% current smoker, 54% vs. 51% systolic blood pressure <140 mmHg, with similar proportions in the sub-cohorts. Proportions reaching the Dutch guideline LDL-C target of <2.5 mmol/L were 56% (T2DM), 57% (T2DM + CVE), 48% (CVE only) and 53% (multiple CVE only). Frequencies of high intensity dose statin (simvastatin ≥80 mg, atorvastatin ≥40 mg or rosuvastatin ≥20 mg) were 6% (T2DM), 9% (T2DM + CVE, CVE only) and 14% (multiple CVE only); 1–2% received additional ezetimibe and 3–5% received non-statin LMT only, including ezetimibe. Conclusion: Despite LMT, >40% of the patients above ESC target also failed to reach the less stringent Dutch target, even in the higher risk groups. Therefore, management of hypercholesterolemia after CVE or T2DM should be optimized to improve cardiovascular outcomes. There is substantial room for improving other cardiovascular risk factors.

Dose Efficiency of Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents for the Treatment of Patients With Chemotherapy-Induced Anemia: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) increase red blood cell production in patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). In Europe, short-acting ESAs (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, epoetin zeta, and epoetin theta) and a long-acting ESA (darbepoetin alfa) are available to treat CIA. OBJECTIVE This systematic review aimed to determine potential dose efficiency associated with the use of different ESAs for the treatment of CIA according to European labeling. METHODS A systematic review of ESA studies with starting doses according to European labeling was conducted according to published methodology. Measures of dose efficiency were defined as mean weekly doses to achieve target hemoglobin level or final dose and dose adjustments (dose increase, decrease, or withheld). Electronic databases and grey literature sources were searched up to July 2012. Data were selected for analysis using an evidence hierarchy and quantitatively analyzed to assess statistical homogeneity. Where pooling of data was not appropriate, a narrative summary with descriptive statistics (medians and ranges) was reported. RESULTS Fifty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-five studies considered to represent the highest level of evidence were extracted and included in the analysis. The analysis showed a high degree of statistical heterogeneity, often precluding meta-analysis. The patients included in the analysis were representative of those encountered in clinical practice, and patient characteristics were similar between the short-acting and the darbepoetin alfa groups. Mean weekly doses appeared ~30% lower with darbepoetin alfa versus short-acting ESAs (median, 136.5 μg or 27,300 IU [range, 21,560-38,260 IU] vs 38,230 IU [range, 31,634-42,714 IU], respectively), resulting in a mean weekly dose ratio of 1:280. Darbepoetin alfa patients appeared to need fewer dose increases compared with short-acting ESAs (pooled, 0.75%; I(2) = 21% vs median 26.6% [range, 7.6%-44.6%]) and more dose decreases (median, 74% [range, 57%-75%] vs 22% [range, 2.8%-59%]). A similar percentage of darbepoetin alfa and short-acting ESA patients required a dose to be withheld (20% and 33% [2 studies] vs median 33.2% [range, 12.6%-51.1%]). CONCLUSIONS Statistical heterogeneity between studies was high, although clinically the studies represented medical practice. Without randomized clinical trials directly comparing darbepoetin alfa and short-acting ESAs, these findings are tentative and future research is warranted. This review shows that good-quality, reliable data from head-to-head trials are lacking. The best available evidence comes from prospective ESA-arm data. Mean weekly doses, dose increases, and dose decreases suggest a dose efficiency for darbepoetin alfa compared with short-acting ESAs.

Methods for estimating costs in patients with hyperlipidemia experiencing their first cardiovascular event in the United Kingdom

Abstract Aims: Methods for integrating external costs into clinical databases are not well-characterized. The purpose of this research was to describe and implement methods for estimating the cost of hospitalizations, prescriptions, and general practitioner and specialist visits used to manage hyperlipidemia patients experiencing cardiovascular (CV) events in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods: This study was a retrospective cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics data. Costs were incorporated based on reference costs from the National Health Service, and labor costs from the Personal Social Services Research Unit. The study population included patients seen by general practitioners in the UK from 2006–2012. Patients ≥18 years were selected at the time of their first CV-related hospitalization defined as myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, heart failure, transient ischemic attack, unstable angina, or revascularization. To be included, patients must have received ≥2 lipid-lowering therapies. Outcome measures included healthcare utilization and direct medical costs for hospitalizations, medications, general practitioner visits, and specialist visits during the 6-month acute period, starting with the CV hospitalization, and during the subsequent 30-month long-term period. Results: There were 24,093 patients with a CV hospitalization included in the cohort. This study identified and costed 69,240 hospitalizations, 673,069 GP visits, 32,942 specialist visits, and 2,572,792 prescriptions, representing 855 unique drug and dose combinations. The mean acute period and mean annualized long-term period costs (2014£) were £4,060 and £1,433 for hospitalizations, £377 and £518 for GP visits, £59 and £103 for specialist visits, and £98 and £209 for medications. Conclusions: Hospital costs represent the largest portion of acute and long-term costs in this population. Detailed costing using utilization data is feasible and representative of UK clinical practice, but is labor intensive. The availability of a standardized coding system in the UK drug costing data would greatly facilitate drug costing.

The prevalence, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and treatment of patients at very high risk of cardiovascular events in the United Kingdom: a cross-sectional study

Abstract Objective: To assess the prevalence of patients at very high risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in the United Kingdom (UK) and evaluate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) values and treatment patterns in these patients. Methods: This cross-sectional study used primary care data from UK electronic medical records in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) in 2013. Very high-risk patients were defined per European Society of Cardiology guidelines as those with hyperlipidemia (assessed by co-medication) and documented cardiovascular disease (CVD) or hyperlipidemia and type 2 diabetes (DM2) without CVD (DM2w/oCVD). All analyses were descriptive. Results: Data from 4,940,226 patients were captured in the CPRD in 2013. Of these, 5% of patients had received ≥2 lipid-modifying therapy prescriptions and were at very high risk of CVD (3% [n = 138,536] had documented CVD, 2% [n = 98,743] had DM2w/oCVD). In documented CVD patients, coronary artery disease (73%) was the most frequent type of event (25% had myocardial infarction [MI]), followed by cerebrovascular disease (18%), and peripheral arterial disease (9%); 21% had experienced multiple CV events, 25% had DM2, and 3% had MI within 1 year. In documented CVD and DM2w/oCVD patients, >95% received statin treatment; 24% received high-intensity statin, and 1.5% statin plus ezetimibe. Across both populations, 64–66% had LDL-C levels ≥1.8 mmol/L, 27–28% ≥2.5 mmol/L, 6–7% ≥3.5 mmol/L, and 3% had levels ≥4.0 mmol/L, respectively. Conclusion: A well-defined proportion of patients remain at very high-risk of CVD. Statin therapy needs optimization, but, for some patients with high LDL-C levels, multiple CV events, MI within 1 year, or CVD and DM2, additional more intensive therapy may be needed.

Cardiovascular Disease and its Risk Factors in Patients with Familial Hypercholesterolemia: A Systematic Review

Objectives: Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) leads to prolonged vascular exposure to high levels of lowdensity lipoprotein cholesterol and subsequent development of atherosclerotic lesions. This study examines additional risk factors in patients with FH and their impact on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Methods: A systematic literature review identified publications describing cardiovascular risk in patients with FH (January-October 2016), extending a previous published review (2004-2015). Each article was assessed for bias by two reviewers using the modified Newcastle–Ottawa assessment scale for non-randomized studies. Additional risk factors studied included age, sex, FH mutations, and previous CVD. Results: Three new studies were identified, conducted in the Netherlands, Spain, and Brazil, and reviewed together with the 14 studies identified in the previous review. The study with the lowest bias, comparing patients with versus without FH, reported odds ratios (ORs) for coronary artery disease (CAD) of 10.3 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.8–13.8) and 13.2 (95% CI: 10.0–17.4) in patients treated and untreated with lipid-lowering therapy, respectively. The highest risk increases in mortality were observed in the 30–60-yr age band. Most studies found that men with FH had a ~2.5‑fold higher CVD risk compared with women, although the magnitude of the difference varied by study. Patients carrying null-mutations had a 68% higher risk of premature CVD (OR: 1.68; 95% CI: 1.10–2.40), and recurrence of cardiovascular events versus patients carrying defective-mutations. Premature CVD was identified as a risk factor for mortality (standardized mortality ratio: 1.62; 95% CI: 1.32–1.93). Conclusions: FH-related CVD risk is high, even in treated patients, and represents an important unmet medical need. Alongside classical risk factors (age, blood pressure, body mass index, smoking, lipid levels), FH-causing mutations are important for understanding FH-related CVD risk. Other parameters, such as age at which statin therapy is started, require further research.