Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Long-term use of statin therapy is essential to obtain clinical benefits, but adherence is often suboptimal and some patients are also reported to fail because of ‘statin resistance'. The identification of PCSK9 as a key factor in the LDL clearance pathway has led to the development of new monoclonal antibodies. Here we critically review the economic evaluations published in Europe and focused on statins. We searched the PubMed database to select the studies published from July 2006 to June 2016 and finally selected 19 articles. Overall, the majority of studies were conducted from a third-party payer's viewpoint and recurred to modelling. Most studies were sponsored by industry and funding seemed to play a pivotal role in the study design. Patients resistant to LDL-C level reduction were considered only in a few studies. The place in therapy of the new class of biologic should be considered a kind of ‘third line' for cholesterol-lowering, after patients have failed with restricted dietary regimens and then with current drug therapies. Otherwise they could result in hardly sustainable expenses even for developed countries.

Keywords

cardiovascular medicine drugs health economics health policy

Introduction

Cardiovascular disease is the main cause of death in Europe and worldwide.^1,2 The relationship between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and cardiovascular disease is well recognised and understood.^3,4 In view of the key role of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in the atherosclerotic process, cholesterol-lowering therapy represents one of the established tools for reducing cardiovascular risk in both primary and secondary prevention.⁵

The current cholesterol-lowering drugs include statins, bile acid sequestrants and selective cholesterol absorption inhibitors.⁶ Since their introduction, statins have become a cornerstone for cardiovascular disease prevention, with demonstrated efficacy in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in both primary and secondary prevention, particularly in high-risk patients.^7–9

Long-term use is essential to obtain clinical benefits but adherence to statin therapy is often suboptimal, for various reasons (e.g. patient’s age, sex and polypharmacy) besides adverse effects,^10,11 which can all contribute to failure in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels.¹² Yet, some patients are reported to fail in achieving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol targets because of ‘statin resistance’,¹³ a condition associated with both genetic and environmental factors (such as gene polymorphisms and smoking) as well as pathological states (e.g. inflammation, hypertension and HIV infection).

The identification of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9),¹⁴ a key factor in the LDL clearance pathway, and the finding that individuals with loss-of-function mutations in PCSK9 have low plasma levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol¹⁵ and are protected from coronary heart disease¹⁶ have led to the development of new therapeutic options aimed at PCSK9 inhibition. Evolocumab and alirocumab (both monoclonal antibodies against PCSK9)^17,18 have now been approved for patients with mixed dyslipidaemia, heterozygous (familial and non-familial) and homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia. Both biologics should be prescribed: (i) in combination with a statin only or a statin with other lipid-lowering therapies in patients unable to reach low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals with the maximum tolerated dose of a statin; and (ii) alone or in combination with other lipid-lowering therapies in patients who are statin-intolerant (or for whom a statin is contraindicated). A third antibody (bococizumab) is currently in phase III trials for similar indications,¹⁹ with likely to gain market approval in late 2016. All antibodies are injected subcutaneously once/twice per month.

Here, we critically review the full economic evaluations published in Europe and focused on statins and assess whether and how these studies included in their analyses the patients resistant to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level reduction despite statin treatment, who are ideally the main therapeutic target for the new anticholesterol monoclonal antibodies. Finally, we discuss the potential future scenarios for the ‘market’ of these new drugs from a third-party payer’s perspective.

Methods

We searched the PubMed international database to select the full economic evaluations conducted in the European Union countries and focused on statins as cholesterol-lowering drugs. From the 198 articles published in English from July 2006 to June 2016 initially identified, we finally selected and screened 19 articles^20–38 (see Table 1 and Box 1).^a

Table 1.

Main characteristics of the selected studies.

First author, year, setting	Type of study, perspective	Therapeutic target	Alternatives	Model, time horizon (discount)	Cost items	Therapy adherence	Main conclusion	Sponsorship	Therapy resistance
Becerra, 2015, UK²⁰	Cost-utility analysis third-party payer	Secondary cardiovascular disease prevention	Fixed-dose combination polypill (aspirin, atorvastatin and ramipril) vs. multiple monotherapy	Markov, lifetime (3.5% costs and outcomes)	Drugs Cardiovascular disease events and death Hospitalisations Surgical procedures	Yes	The polypill strategy appears to be cost-effective	Yes	No
McConnachie, 2013, UK²¹	Cost-utility analysis third-party payer	Primary cardiovascular disease prevention	Pravastatin vs. placebo	Cox proportional hazards, 15 years (3.5% costs and outcomes)	Drugs Medical and nurse visits Monitoring and laboratory tests	No	Pravastatin treatment is cost saving and increases QALYs in middle-aged men	Yes	No
Barrios, 2012, Spain²²	Cost-utility analysis third-party payer	Primary and secondary cardiovascular disease prevention	Rosuvastatin vs. generic atorvastatin	Markov, 20 years (3% costs and outcomes)	Drugs Hospitalisation and follow-up	No	Rosuvastatin is more cost-effective than generic atorvastatin	Yes	No
Liew, 2012, Belgium²³	Cost-utility analysis third-party payer	Primary cardiovascular disease prevention	Remaining on atorvastatin vs. switching to simvastatin	Markov, 20 years (3% costs, 1.5% outcomes)	Drugs Hospitalisation and follow-up	No	Remaining on atorvastatin should be costeffective	Yes	No
Ohsfeldt, 2012, Sweden²⁴	Cost-utility analysis third-party payer	Primary cardiovascular disease prevention	Rosuvastatin vs. placebo	Probabilistic Monte Carlo, lifetime (3% costs and outcomes)	Drugs Medical visits Monitoring tests Hospitalisations	Yes	Rosuvastatin is cost-saving in patients with 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease events	Yes	No
Michailov, 2012, Germany²⁵	Cost-utility analysis third-party payer	Secondary cardiovascular disease prevention	Simvastatin plus niacin/laropiprant vs. simvastatin	Markov, lifetime (3% costs and outcomes)	Drugs Medical visits Laboratory tests cardiovascular disease events and deaths	No	Addition of niacin/laropiprant to simvastatin is cost-effective in patients not at low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal	Yes	Yes
Ara, 2012, UK²⁶	Cost-utility analysis third-party payer	Patient with acute coronary syndrome	Atorvastatin 80 mg /rosuvastatin 40 mg vs. simvastatin 40 mg	Markov, lifetime (3.5% costs and outcomes)	Drugs Medical visits Laboratory tests Cardiovascular disease events and follow-up	Yes	Rosuvastatin 40 mg is estimated to be more cost-effective	No	No
Greving, 2011, NL²⁷	Cost-utility analysis third-party payer	Primary cardiovascular disease prevention	Low-dose statin vs. no treatment	Markov, 10 years (4% costs, 1.5% outcomes)	Drugs Medical visits Pharmacists’ fees Laboratory tests Cardiovascular disease events, follow-up and death	Yes	Statins seem not to be cost-effective for primary prevention in patients at low risk	No	No
Plans-Rubió, 2010, Spain²⁸	Cost-effectiveness analysis third-party payer	Primary cardiovascular disease prevention	Atorvastatin/fluvastatin/lovastatin/pravastatin/rosuvastatin/ simvastatin vs. no treatment Statin + cholestyramine/ezetimibe vs. no treatment	Metanalysis for efficacy, 1 year	Drugs Medical visits Laboratory tests Adverse effects	No	Rosuvastatin should be cost-effective for patients with high risk, but combination therapies for greater reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and simvastatin for those with moderate or low CHD risk	No	Yes
Reckless, 2010, UK²⁹	Cost-utility analysis third-party payer	Patients with acute coronary syndrome	Switching to simvastatin + ezetimibe vs. doubling submaximal statin doses	Markov, lifetime (3.5% costs and outcomes)	Drugs Medical visits Cardiovascular disease events, follow-up and death	No	Switching to simvastatin + ezetimibe is cost-effective	Yes	No
Lorgelly, 2010, UK³⁰	Cost-effectiveness analysis third-party payer	Systolic heart failure	Rosuvastatin vs. placebo	Within trial analysis, 3 years (3.5% costs and outcomes)	Drugs Hospitalisations Surgical procedures	Yes	Rosuvastatin significantly reduces healthcare costs	Yes	No
Nherera, 2010, UK³¹	Cost-utility analysis third-party payer	Familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH)	High-intensive statins vs. low-intensive statins	Markov, lifetime (3.5% costs and outcomes)	Drugs Cardiovascular disease events and follow-up Surgical procedures	No	High-intensive statins are cost-effective for younger FH patients	No	No
Martikainen, 2010, Sweden³²	Cost-effectiveness analysis third-party payer	High-risk patients with hypercholes terolaemia	Eight treatment strategies including high-intensive statins	Probabilistic decision tree, 1 year	Drugs Medical visits Laboratory tests Travelling	No	Rosuvastatin in high low-density lipoprotein cholesterol patients is cost-effective	Yes	Yes
Soini, 2010, Finland³³	Cost-utility analysis Society	Secondary prevention of coronary heart disease	Simvastatin 40 mg/ atorvastatin 20 mg/ rosuvastatin 10 mg + ezetimibe 10 mg vs. simvastatin 40mg	Markov, lifetime (3% costs and outcomes)	Drugs Medical visits Monitoring and laboratory tests Hospitalisations Travelling	No	Switching to simvastatin + ezetimibe is cost-effective in patients not at goal	Yes	Yes
Taylor, 2009, UK, Spain, Germany³⁴	Cost-utility analysis third-party payer	Secondary cardiovascular disease prevention	Atorvastatin 80 mg vs. atorvastatin 10 mg	Markov, lifetime (3.5% costs and outcomes)	Drugs Cardiovascular disease events Surgical procedures	No	Atorvastatin 80 mg is cost-effective	Yes	No
Peura, 2008, Finland³⁵	Cost-utility analysis third-party payer	Primary and secondary coronary heart disease prevention	Rosuvastatin/ vs. simvastatin	Markov, lifetime (5% costs and outcomes)	Drugs Medical visitsLaboratory tests Myocardial infarction events and death Travelling	No	Rosuvastatin can be considered potentially cost-effective	Yes	No
Gouveia Pinto, 2008, Portugal³⁶	Cost-effectiveness analysis third-party payer	Hypercholesterolemia and prevention of ischemic heart disease	Rosuvastatin vs. atorvastatin/pravastatin/simvastatin	Markov, lifetime (5% costs and outcomes)	Drugs Medical visits Laboratory tests Myocardial infarction events Examinations	Np	Rosuvastatin is a cost-effective alternative	Yes	No
Lindgren, 2007, Scandinavian countries³⁷	Cost-effectiveness analysis, Cost-utility analysis Society	Secondary cardiovascular disease prevention	High-dose atorvastatin vs. regular dose simvastatin	Markov, lifetime (3% costs and outcomes)	Drugs Hospitalisations Surgical procedures Productivity loss	Np	High-dose atorvastatin appears to be cost-effective	Yes	No
Scuffham, 2006, Hungary³⁸	Cost-effectiveness analysis, Cost-utility analysis third-party payer	Treatment after percutaneous coronary intervention	Fluvastatin vs. no treatment	Markov, 10 years (5% costs and outcomes)	Drugs Medical visits Cardiovascular disease deaths Hospitalisations	Yes	Fluvastatin is cost-effective	Yes	No

Box 1.

Main results of the review on statins.

Methods	Thirteen studies included a cost-utility analysis,^{20–27,29,31,33–35} four studies a cost-effectiveness analysis^28,30,32,36 and the remaining two both the techniques together.^37,38 Seventeen studies took a third-party payer’s viewpoint,^{20–32,34–36,38} only two a societal perspective^33,37 – one of them without including indirect costs.³⁰ Eleven of the 13 cost-utility analyses and one of the four cost-effectiveness analyses were based on Markov models^{20,22,23,25–27,29,31,33–36} – such as the two studies including both the techniques^37,38 – while the remaining five^{21,24,28,30,32} used other models. Eleven studies adopted a lifetime horizon,^{20,24–26,29,31,33–37} five were designed over long-term periods^{21–23,27,38} and only three were short-term.^28,30,32
Costs	All the studies estimated the costs of drugs and management of cardiovascular disease events (hospitalisations, follow-up treatments and monitoring procedures). Five of the 19 included the costs of surgical interventions^{20,30,31,34,37} and six of those related to death too;^{20,25,27,29,35,38} three extended the estimates to direct non-healthcare costs (i.e. travel).^32,33,35 The Spanish study²⁸ was the only one that estimated the costs relating to adverse drug effects.
Funding	Fifteen studies were funded by industry and all concluded in favour of the sponsored products.^{20–25,30,32–38} Three of the remaining studies concluded in favour of a statin treatment,^26,28,29 while the last – focused on patients at low risk in primary prevention – was the only one that was unfavourable.²⁷
Statin resistance	Only four studies took account of resistance to statins. The German²⁵ and Finnish³³ cost-utility analyses in secondary prevention mainly differed in the efficacy sources (respectively, one short-term clinical trial and various clinical studies selected through a systematic literature search) and the single statins assessed (only simvastatin in the former, also atorvastatin and rosuvastatin in the latter). Both studies concluded in favour of an association of actives (simvastatin + niacin/laropiprant in the former, simvastatin + ezetimibe in the latter) – all drugs marketed by the (same) sponsor. In the Spanish cost-effectiveness analysis,²⁸ all statins and combinations with cholestyramine/ezetimibe were compared with no treatment in primary prevention, while the Swedish cost-effectiveness analysis³² limited the comparison to eight different statin therapies for high-risk patients with hypercholesterolaemia. Both studies estimated the efficacy of therapies through a meta-analysis and concluded in favour of rosuvastatin (the sponsor’s drug in the Swedish study), the Spanish study recommending combination therapies too when greater reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol are required.

Results

The studies came from 11 European Union countries, more than half of them from Sweden (4) and the UK (6). Six studies focused on primary prevention,^{21–24,27,28} five on secondary,^{20,25,33,34,37} one on both³⁵ and the remaining seven on other therapeutic targets – three on subjects with hypercholesterolaemia^31,32,36 and four on patients affected by severe cardiovascular diseases.^26,29,30,38 Fifteen studies analysed therapies with statins alone,^{20–27,30–32,34–38} four in combination with other active agents.^25,28,29,33 Only six of the 19 studies took account of statin therapy adherence,^{20,24,26,27,30,38} five of the remaining 13 assumed that all patients were fully compliant,^{25,29,32–34} while three did not mention adherence as an issue.^21,28,36

Only four studies selected took into account the question of resistance to statins in their analyses.^25,28,32,33 One study focused on primary prevention,²⁸ two on secondary^25,33 and the remainder on high-risk patients for hypercholesterolaemia.³² The two studies in secondary prevention,^25,33 based on lifetime Markov models, focused only on patients who failed to meet their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target level with statin alone and analysed the additional benefit of combination therapies; the two others conducted a subgroup analysis over a one-year period in patients who did not achieve the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol therapeutic target.^28,32

Overall, the majority of European full economic evaluations on statins were conducted from a third-party payer’s viewpoint on therapeutic targets of demonstrated efficacy for these drugs, using modelling to estimate the cost-effectiveness of single statins, mostly over a long-term time horizon. Many studies included costs related to death, and some even direct non-healthcare costs in their estimates, but adherence to statin therapies was hardly considered, even though long-term therapy is essential to obtain clinical benefits. The majority of studies were sponsored by industry and funding seemed to play a pivotal role in the study design, with results aimed at supporting the cost-effectiveness of the sponsored drug, as is often the case in pharmaco-economic literature.³⁹

Patients resistant to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level reduction, i.e. the major therapeutic target of the new anticholesterol biologics, were considered only in a few studies. Yet, they were all conducted after the patent expiry of the first statins launched, and most analyses were extended to associations with other (in-patent) actives as alternatives, concluding in favour of either high-intensity statins or combination therapies.

With this background, we tend to conclude that statin resistance was not considered a relevant ‘unmet need’ in the European economic evaluations conducted before the launch of the new human antibodies.

Policy implications

At this stage, we wonder whether and how the forthcoming launch of this new class of biologics will affect the present market situation in the near future. In principle, these drugs should be prescribed for very specific patient targets, which represent ‘market niches’. Although these new products are expected to be very costly (as is typical for new human antibodies), the whole ‘budget impact’ of this therapeutic class on pharmaceutical expenditure should be limited, as for any rare disease, even though they might be prescribed as add-on therapy, with consequent extra cost for third-party payers. Moreover, the subcutaneous injection of human antibodies can hardly be considered an advantage for patients’ quality of life compared to a daily statin pill, although their marketers may well claim that the (bi)monthly schedules should facilitate patient adherence to cholesterol lowering therapy.

Following a rational strategy, the place in therapy of these new products could be considered a kind of ‘third line’ for cholesterol-lowering, after patients have failed with restricted dietary regimens first and then with current drug therapies (starting from statins) second.

However, experience in various other pathologies can lead us to predict very different scenarios, in which the role of the new antibodies may grow substantially depending on the marketing support that companies provide to promote them – as is typical in the (non) pharmaceutical market, where supply can often induce demand.⁴⁰ This is even more likely when the new products challenge off-patent drugs at the end of their ‘life cycle’, as happens in this competitive arena. A substantial ‘switch’ of prescribing patterns might lead to a massive budget impact for third-party payers, in line with the growth of the symptom in developed countries⁴¹ and the increasing restrictions recommended in clinical guidelines.⁶

According to a rough estimate based on the first official prices issued in the UK, a year’s treatment with the new human antibodies would cost around £4000 – at least 100 times more than that with a generic statin and 10 times the most expensive branded statin.⁴² This would result in hardly sustainable expenses even for developed countries in case of substantial prescriptions of the new products.

In conclusion, to militate this sort of disruptive scenario for European third-party payers, we would warmly recommend the adoption of a ‘price-volume’-like contract^43,44 for these products from the very beginning, in which drastic price reduction should be envisaged in case of prescriptions exceeding the appropriate therapeutic targets estimated ex ante.

Subsequently, systematic control of prescription patterns will be the only means of enhancing rational consumption in clinical practice, although its effectiveness is expected to vary a lot in different countries, depending on the type and management of healthcare systems, and on medical deontology too.

Footnotes

Declarations

Acknowledgements

None

Note

References

European Cardiovascular Disease Statistics 2012 edition, http://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Initiatives/EuroHeart/2012-European-Cardiovascular-Disease-Statistics (accessed July 2016).

WHO Fact sheet N0 310, updated May 2014, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/ (accessed 12 November 2016).

Neaton

Blackburn

Jacobs

Kuller

Lee

Sherwin

. Serum cholesterol level and mortality findings for men screened in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Research Group. Arch Intern Med 1992; 152: 1490e1500–1490e1500.

Graham

Atar

Borch-Johnsen

Boysen

Burell

Cifkova

. European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: full text. Fourth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and other societies on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2007; 14(Suppl. 2): S1eS113–S1eS113.

Reiner

Catapano

De Backer

Graham

Taskinen

Wiklund

. ESC/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidemias: the task force for the management of dyslipidemias of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS). Eur Heart J 2011; 32: 1769–1818.

Catapano AL, Graham I, De Backer G, Wiklund O, Chapman MJ, Drexel H, et al. 2016 ESC/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias. the task force for the management of dyslipidaemias of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS). Eur Heart J. Epub ahead of print 27 August 2016. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw272.

Brugts

Yetgin

Hoeks

Gotto

Shepherd

Westendorp

. The benefits of statins in people without established cardiovascular disease but with cardiovascular risk factors: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2009; 338: b2376–b2376.

Mills

Rachlis

Devereaux

Arora

Perri

. Primary prevention of cardiovascular mortality and events with statin treatments. A network meta-analysis involving more than 65,000 patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 52: 1769–1781.

Shalev

Chodick

Silber

Kokia

Jan

Heymann

. Continuation of statin treatment and all-cause mortality: a population-based cohort study. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169: 260–268.

10.

Benner

Glynn

Mogun

Neumann

Weinstein

Avorn

. Long-term persistence in use of statin therapy in elderly patients. JAMA 2002; 288: 455–461.

11.

Mann

Woodard

Muntner

Falzon

Kronish

. Predictors of nonadherence to statins: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Pharmacother 2010; 44: 1410–1421.

12.

Maningat

Gordon

Breslow

. How do we improve patient compliance and adherence to long-term statin therapy? Curr Atheroscler Rep 2013; 15: 291–291.

13.

Reiner

. Resistance and intolerance to statins. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2014; 24: 1057–1066.

14.

Abifadel

Varret

Rabès

J-P

Allard

Ouguerram

Devillers

. Mutations in PCSK9 cause autosomal dominant hypercholesterolemia. Nat Genet 2003; 34: 154e156–154e156.

15.

Zhao

Tuakli-Wosornu

Lagace

Kinch

Grishin

Horton

. Molecular characterization of loss-of-function mutations in PCSK9 and identification of a compound heterozygote. Am J Hum Genet 2006; 79: 514e523–514e523.

16.

Cohen

Boerwinkle

Mosley

Jr Hobbs

. Sequence variations in PCSK9, low LDL, and protection against coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 1264–1272.

17.

Summary of product characteristics: Repatha. EMA, http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/003766/WC500191398.pdf (2015, accessed 12 November 2016).

18.

Summary of product characteristics: Praulent. EMA, http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/003882/WC500194521.pdf (2015, accessed 12 November 2016).

19.

http://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/two_additional_phase_3_lipid_lowering_studies_of_bococizumab_deliver_positive_topline_results (accessed 12 November 2016).

20.

Becerra

Gracia

Desai

Abogunrin

Brand

Chapman

. Cost-effectiveness and public health benefit of secondary cardiovascular disease prevention from improved adherence using a polypill in the UK. BMJ Open 2015; 5: e007111–e007111.

21.

McConnachie

Walker

Robertson

Marchbank

Peacock

Packard

. Long-term impact on healthcare resource utilization of statin treatment, and its cost effectiveness in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a record linkage study. Eur Heart J 2014; 35: 290–298.

22.

Barrios

Lobos

Serrano

Brosa

Capel

Alvarez Sanz

. Cost-effectiveness analysis of rosuvastatin vs generic atorvastatin in Spain. J Med Econ 2012; 15(Suppl. 1): 45–54.

23.

Liew

Webb

Marbaix

Annemans

. Changes to the statin prescribing policy in Belgium: potential impact in clinical and economic terms. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 2012; 12: 225–232.

24.

Ohsfeldt

Olsson

Jensen

Gandhi

Paulsson

. Cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin 20 mg for the prevention of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality: a Swedish economic evaluation of the JUPITER trial. J Med Econ 2012; 15: 125–133.

25.

Michailov

Davies

Krobot

. Cost-effectiveness of extended-release niacin/laropiprant added to a stable simvastatin dose in secondary prevention patients not at cholesterol goal in Germany. Eur J Health Econ 2012; 13: 365–374.

26.

Ara

Pandor

Stevens

Rafia

Ward

Rees

. Prescribing high-dose lipid-lowering therapy early to avoid subsequent cardiovascular events: is this a cost-effective strategy? Eur J Prev Cardiol 2012; 19: 474–483.

27.

Greving

Visseren

de Wit

Algra

. Statin treatment for primary prevention of vascular disease: whom to treat? Cost-effectiveness analysis. BMJ 2011; 342: d1672–d1672.

28.

Plans-Rubió

. The cost effectiveness of statin therapies in Spain in 2010, after the introduction of generics and reference prices. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 2010; 10: 369–382.

29.

Reckless

Davies

Tunceli

Brudi

. Projected cost-effectiveness of ezetimibe/simvastatin compared with doubling the statin dose in the United Kingdom: findings from the INFORCE study. Value Health 2010; 13: 726–734.

30.

Lorgelly

Briggs

Wedel

Dunselman

Hjalmarson

Kjekshus

. CORONA Study Group. An economic evaluation of rosuvastatin treatment in systolic heart failure: evidence from the CORONA trial. Eur J Heart Fail 2010; 12: 66–74.

31.

Nherera

Calvert

Demott

Humphries

Neil

Minhas

. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of a high-intensity statin compared to a low-intensity statin in the management of patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia. Curr Med Res Opin 2010; 26: 529–536.

32.

Martikainen

Soini

Paulsson

. Cost-effectiveness of single agent, uptitration and switching statin treatment strategies for lipid lowering in Sweden. Curr Med Res Opin 2010; 26: 389–396.

33.

Soini

Davies

Martikainen

Tunceli

Niskanen

. Population-based health-economic evaluation of the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in Finland. Curr Med Res Opin 2010; 26: 25–36.

34.

Taylor

Pandya

Thompson

Chu

Graff

Shepherd

. Cost-effectiveness of intensive atorvastatin therapy in secondary cardiovascular prevention in the United Kingdom, Spain, and Germany, based on the Treating to New Targets study. Eur J Health Econ 2009; 10: 255–265.

35.

Peura

Martikainen

Soini

Hallinen

Niskanen

. Cost-effectiveness of statins in the prevention of coronary heart disease events in middle-aged Finnish men. Curr Med Res Opin 2008; 24: 1823–1832.

36.

Gouveia Pinto

Oliveira Carrageta

Silva Miguel

. Cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin in the prevention of ischemic heart disease in Portugal. Value Health 2008; 11: 154–159.

37.

Lindgren

Graff

Olsson

Pedersen

Jönsson

. IDEAL Trial Investigators. Cost-effectiveness of high-dose atorvastatin compared with regular dose simvastatin. Eur Heart J 2007; 28: 1448–1453.

38.

Scuffham

Kósa

. The cost-effectiveness of fluvastatin in Hungary following successful percutaneous coronary intervention. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 2006; 20: 309–317.

39.

Garattini

Koleva

Casadei

. Modeling in pharmacoeconomic studies: funding sources and outcomes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010; 26: 330–333.

40.

Evans

Supplier-induced demand: some empirical evidence and implications. In: Perlman

(ed). The economics of health and medical care, London: Macmillan, 1974, pp. 113–134.

41.

Celermajer

Chow

Marijon

Anstey

Woo

. Cardiovascular disease in the developing world: prevalences, patterns, and the potential of early diseasedetection. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 60: 1207–1216.

42.

Regional Drug and Therapeutics Centre. Cost comparison charts, April 2016, Newcastle: Regional Drug & Therapeutics Centre (RDTC), 2016.

43.

Vogler

Zimmermann

Habl

Piessnegger

Bucsics

. Discounts and rebates granted to public payers for medicines in European countries. Southern Med Rev 2012; 5: 38–46.

44.

Messori

. Application of the price-volume approach in cases of innovative drugs where value-based pricing is inadequate: description of real experiences in Italy. Clin Drug Investig 2016; 36: 599–603.

Cholesterol-lowering drugs: science and marketing

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Results

Policy implications

Footnotes

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Note

References