Cost-Effectiveness of Non-Statin Lipid-Modifying Agents for Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review
Author(s)
Abushanab D1, Al-Badriyeh D2, Marquina C3, Bailey C4, Jaam M5, Liew D6, Ademi Z1
1Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, 2Qatar University, Doha, Qatar, 3Monash University, Windsor, Australia, 4Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia, 5Qatar University College of Pharmacy, Doha, Qatar, 6Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
OBJECTIVES : Non-statin therapies (NSTs) have shown to provide additional benefits for cardiovascular risk reduction among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but their economic merits have not been fully confirmed. The objective of the systematic review was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NSTs for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients with T2DM. METHODS : A literature search was systematically performed using MeSH terms from January 1990 to January 2021 in ten databases (e.g. MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and EconLit). Two reviewers independently screened the included studies that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of NSTs versus any comparator. Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) checklist was used for quality assessment. Cost outputs were adapted to 2018 USD to facilitate comparisons between studies. RESULTS : The search identified 13 studies, where ezetimibe, Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin Type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, fenofibrate, polypill, nicotinic acid, and extended-release niacin/laropiprant (ER- ERN/LRPT) were compared to standard care. Six out of eight included studies considered ezetimibe plus statin to be a cost-effective therapy for patients with T2DM and with or without CVD, three out of four included studies suggested that PCSK9 inhibitors are not cost-effective at the current pricing arrangements. Fenofibrate is a cost-effective option either as monotherapy or combined with statin, and nicotinic acid, polypill, and ER- ERN/LRPT were also cost-effective. The overall QHES quality of the majority of economic evaluations had good quality of reporting. The main cost-effectiveness drivers were the cost of drug and the baseline risk of CVD events. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were consistent in the majority of studies after adaptation to 2018 USD values. CONCLUSIONS : While majority of NSTs may be cost-effective options compared to standard care for primary and secondary prevention of CVD in patients with T2DM, PCSK9 inhibitors are not at the current pricing arrangements.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2021-11, ISPOR Europe 2021, Copenhagen, Denmark
Value in Health, Volume 24, Issue 12, S2 (December 2021)
Code
POSC63
Topic
Clinical Outcomes, Economic Evaluation, Epidemiology & Public Health
Topic Subcategory
Clinician Reported Outcomes, Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis, Thresholds & Opportunity Cost
Disease
Cardiovascular Disorders, Diabetes/Endocrine/Metabolic Disorders
Explore Related HEOR by Topic