OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of ezetimibe plus simvastatin (E/S) versus atorvastatin or simvastatin monotherapy as second-line treatment of primary hypercholesterolaemia from the Dutch healthcare perspective. METHODS: The evaluation used a Markov model and patient data from the Dutch EASEGO study in which patients failing to reach goal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels on atorvastatin 10 mg or simvastatin 20 mg had their dose doubled or switched to ezetimibe 10 mg plus generic simvastatin 20 mg (E10/S20). The second scenario, based on Dutch guidelines, switched patients from simvastatin 40 mg to atorvastatin 40 mg, or ezetimibe 10 mg was added to simvastatin 40 mg (E10/S40). The key effectiveness input measure was change in total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein ratio obtained from the EASEGO study. In conformity with published studies linking reduced lipid levels to reduced risk of cardiovascular events, the present model assumed that a lipid decrease with ezetimibe may be a signal for reduced risk of cardiovascular events. Model parameters were derived from published literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed for the key parameters. RESULTS: In the EASEGO scenario, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for E10/S20 was <euro>3497/quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) vs atorvastatin 20 mg and <euro>26,417/QALY vs simvastatin 40 mg. In the Dutch guidelines scenario, E10/S40 was dominant (more effective and cost-saving) vs atorvastatin 40 mg. Varying model inputs had limited impact on the cost-effectiveness of E/S. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis showed the cost-effectiveness of E/S versus atorvastatin 20 mg or simvastatin 40 mg (EASEGO scenario) at a threshold of <euro>30,000/QALY and vs atorvastatin 40 mg was dominant (Dutch guidelines). Thus, E/S seems a valuable cost-effective second-line treatment option for patients not attaining lipid treatment goals.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of ezetimibe plus simvastatin (E/S) versus atorvastatin or simvastatin monotherapy as second-line treatment of primary hypercholesterolaemia from the Dutch healthcare perspective. METHODS: The evaluation used a Markov model and patient data from the Dutch EASEGO study in which patients failing to reach goal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels on atorvastatin 10 mg or simvastatin 20 mg had their dose doubled or switched to ezetimibe 10 mg plus generic simvastatin 20 mg (E10/S20). The second scenario, based on Dutch guidelines, switched patients from simvastatin 40 mg to atorvastatin 40 mg, or ezetimibe 10 mg was added to simvastatin 40 mg (E10/S40). The key effectiveness input measure was change in total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein ratio obtained from the EASEGO study. In conformity with published studies linking reduced lipid levels to reduced risk of cardiovascular events, the present model assumed that a lipid decrease with ezetimibe may be a signal for reduced risk of cardiovascular events. Model parameters were derived from published literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed for the key parameters. RESULTS: In the EASEGO scenario, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for E10/S20 was <euro>3497/quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) vs atorvastatin 20 mg and <euro>26,417/QALY vs simvastatin 40 mg. In the Dutch guidelines scenario, E10/S40 was dominant (more effective and cost-saving) vs atorvastatin 40 mg. Varying model inputs had limited impact on the cost-effectiveness of E/S. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis showed the cost-effectiveness of E/S versus atorvastatin 20 mg or simvastatin 40 mg (EASEGO scenario) at a threshold of <euro>30,000/QALY and vs atorvastatin 40 mg was dominant (Dutch guidelines). Thus, E/S seems a valuable cost-effective second-line treatment option for patients not attaining lipid treatment goals.
Authors: Roberta Ara; Abdullah Pandor; Indra Tumur; Suzy Paisley; Alejandra Duenas; Robert Williams; Anna Wilkinson; Paul Durrington; Jim Chilcott Journal: Clin Ther Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 3.393
Authors: Harold Bays; Aditi Sapre; William Taggart; Ji Liu; Rachel Capece; Andrew Tershakovec Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2008-09-08 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Anne B Rossebø; Terje R Pedersen; Kurt Boman; Philippe Brudi; John B Chambers; Kenneth Egstrup; Eva Gerdts; Christa Gohlke-Bärwolf; Ingar Holme; Y Antero Kesäniemi; William Malbecq; Christoph A Nienaber; Simon Ray; Terje Skjaerpe; Kristian Wachtell; Ronnie Willenheimer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-09-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jerome L Fleg; Mihriye Mete; Barbara V Howard; Jason G Umans; Mary J Roman; Robert E Ratner; Angela Silverman; James M Galloway; Jeffrey A Henderson; Matthew R Weir; Charlton Wilson; Mario Stylianou; Wm James Howard Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-12-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: M Farnier; M Averna; L Missault; H Vaverkova; M Viigimaa; R Massaad; K Vandormael; A O Johnson-Levonas; P Brudi Journal: Int J Clin Pract Date: 2009-02-16 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: P Brudi; J P Reckless; D P Henry; T Pomykaj; S T Lim; R Massaad; K Vandormael; A O Johnson-Levonas Journal: Cardiology Date: 2008-11-15 Impact factor: 1.869
Authors: Henk W O Roeters van Lennep; An Ho Liem; Peter H J M Dunselman; Geesje M Dallinga-Thie; Aeilko H Zwinderman; J Wouter Jukema Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2008-01-25 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Chai Siah Ku; Bohkyung Kim; Tho X Pham; Yue Yang; Curtis L Weller; Timothy P Carr; Young-Ki Park; Ji-Young Lee Journal: J Med Food Date: 2015-07-10 Impact factor: 2.786
Authors: Ching-Yun Wei; Ruben G W Quek; Guillermo Villa; Shravanthi R Gandra; Carol A Forbes; Steve Ryder; Nigel Armstrong; Sohan Deshpande; Steven Duffy; Jos Kleijnen; Peter Lindgren Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 4.981