Mickael Lothgren

Cost-Effectiveness of LDL-C Lowering With Evolocumab in Patients With High Cardiovascular Risk in the United States

Randomized trials have shown marked reductions in low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C), a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), when evolocumab is administered. We hypothesized that evolocumab added to standard of care (SOC) vs SOC alone is cost‐effective in the treatment of patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) or atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD) with or without statin intolerance and LDL‐C >100 mg/dL. Using a Markov cohort state transition model, primary and recurrent CVD event rates were predicted considering population‐specific trial‐based mean risk factors and calibrated against observed rates in the real world. The LDL‐C–lowering effect from population‐specific phase 3 randomized studies for evolocumab was used together with estimated LDL‐C–lowering effect on CVD event rates per 38.67‐mg/dL LDL‐C lowering from a statin‐trial meta‐analysis. Costs and utilities were included from published sources. Evolocumab treatment was associated with both increased cost and improved quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALY): HeFH (incremental cost: US

Acute and chronic impact of cardiovascular events on health state utilities

153 289, incremental QALY: 2.02, incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio: US

Cost per patient and potential budget implications of denosumab compared with zoledronic acid in adults with bone metastases from solid tumours who are at risk of skeletal-related events: an analysis for Austria, Sweden and Switzerland

75 863/QALY); ASCVD (US

Ldl-C Lowering Efficacy of Evolocumab (Amg 145) Could Reduce Apheresis in Patients At High Risk for Cardiovascular Events in Germany.

158 307, 1.12, US

Acute And Chronic Impact Of Cardiovascular Events On Health State Utilities

141 699/QALY); and ASCVD with statin intolerance (US

OBSERVED VERSUS PREDICTED CARDIOVASCULAR EVENT RATES IN PRIMARY PREVENTION DIABETIC PATIENTS RECEIVING HIGH-INTENSITY STATINS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

136 903, 1.36, US

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab versus zoledronic acid for preventing skeletal-related events in the Czech Republic

100 309/QALY). Evolocumab met both the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and World Health Organization (WHO) thresholds in each population evaluated. Sensitivity and scenario analyses confirmed that model results were robust to changes in model parameters. Among patients with HeFH and ASCVD with or without statin intolerance, evolocumab added to SOC may provide a cost‐effective treatment option for lowering LDL‐C using ACC/AHA intermediate/high value and WHO cost‐effectiveness thresholds. More definitive information on the clinical and economic value of evolocumab will be available from the forthcoming CVD outcomes study.

Cost-effectiveness of Evolocumab in Patients With High Cardiovascular Risk in Spain

BackgroundCost-utility models are frequently used to compare treatments intended to prevent or delay the onset of cardiovascular events. Most published utilities represent post-event health states without incorporating the disutility of the event or reporting the time between the event and utility assessment. Therefore, this study estimated health state utilities representing cardiovascular conditions while distinguishing between acute impact including the cardiovascular event and the chronic post-event impact.MethodsHealth states were drafted and refined based on literature review, clinician interviews, and a pilot study. Three cardiovascular conditions were described: stroke, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and heart failure. One-year acute health states represented the event and its immediate impact, and post-event health states represented chronic impact. UK general population respondents valued the health states in time trade-off tasks with time horizons of one year for acute states and ten years for chronic states.ResultsA total of 200 participants completed interviews (55% female; mean age = 46.6 y). Among acute health states, stroke had the lowest utility (0.33), followed by heart failure (0.60) and ACS (0.67). Utility scores for chronic health states followed the same pattern: stroke (0.52), heart failure (0.57), and ACS (0.82). For stroke and ACS, acute utilities were significantly lower than chronic post-event utilities (difference = 0.20 and 0.15, respectively; both p < 0.0001).ConclusionsResults add to previously published utilities for cardiovascular events by distinguishing between chronic post-event health states and acute health states that include the event and its immediate impact. Findings suggest that acute versus chronic impact should be considered when selecting scores for use in cost-utility models. Thus, the current utilities provide a unique option that may be used to represent the acute and chronic impact of cardiovascular conditions in economic models comparing treatments that may delay or prevent the onset of cardiovascular events.

PCN116 Cost-Effectiveness of Denosumab Versus Zoledronic Acid (ZA) for the Prevention of Skeletal-related Events (SRE) in Patients with Bone Metastases from Solid Tumors in the Netherlands

Objectives To assess cost implications per patient, per year, and to predict the potential annual budget impact when patients with bone metastases secondary to solid tumours at risk of skeletal-related events (SREs) transition from zoledronic acid (ZA; 4 mg every 3–4 weeks) to denosumab (120 mg every 4 weeks) in Austria, Sweden and Switzerland. Methods Country specific costs for medication and administration, patient management and SREs (defined as pathologic fracture, radiation to bone, surgery to bone and spinal cord compression) were assessed over a 1-year time horizon. Drug administration and patient management costs were taken from available public sources. SRE costs were based on local unit costs applied to country specific healthcare resources obtained from a multinational retrospective chart review study. Due to lack of real world data for the included countries, SRE rates were derived from phase III clinical trials in patients with advanced cancer and bone metastases. These trials demonstrated that denosumab was superior to ZA in the reduction of SREs. Results Estimated total annual cost savings for each patient transitioned from ZA to denosumab varied by country and cancer type, ranging from €1583 to €2375 in Austria, from €1980 to €2319 in Sweden (9.1 SEK/€) and from €3408 to €3857 in Switzerland (1.2 CHF/€). Cost savings were mainly driven by the lower SRE related costs and lower administration costs of denosumab compared with ZA. Conclusions Denosumab offers superior efficacy compared with ZA in patients with solid tumours and bone metastases. Cost savings are predicted in the Austrian, Swedish and Swiss healthcare systems following treatment transition from ZA to denosumab.

Cost-Effectiveness of LDL-C Lowering With Evolocumab In Patients With High Cardiovascular Risk In The United States

 80% of patients in all cohorts (SP, SP + max LLT, SP + max LLT + T2D) were eligible for apheresis at baseline (LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL)  Applying LAPLACE-2 efficacy regarding predicted LDL-C reduction (Figure 1)  100% of patients in all cohorts can possibly avoid apheresis by reaching recommended LDL-C levels < 100 mg/dL  99% in all cohorts reached target according to ESC-guideline (LDL-C levels < 70 mg/d)