Gregg C Fonarow1,2, Ben van Hout3, Guillermo Villa4, Jorge Arellano5, Peter Lindgren6,7. 1. Division of Cardiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles. 2. Section Editor. 3. ScHARR School for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England. 4. Amgen (Europe) GmbH, Zug, Switzerland. 5. Amgen Inc, Thousand Oaks, California. 6. The Swedish Institute for Health Economics, Lund, Sweden. 7. Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
Importance: In October 2018, evolocumab was made available at a reduced annual list price of $5850 in the United States. This 60% reduction was aimed at improving patient access by lowering patient copays. Shortly thereafter, the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol management guideline was released. An updated cost-effectiveness analysis of evolocumab in the United States may be therefore of interest to payers and prescribers. Objective: To present an updated cost-effectiveness analysis of evolocumab added to standard background therapy compared with standard background therapy alone in patients with very high-risk atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, reflecting the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline definition and using the new evolocumab list price. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study used the Markov model originally used in a previous study by Fonarow et al in 2017. A US societal perspective was considered, and a range of baseline cardiovascular event rates were modeled to reflect varying risk profiles in clinical practice within patients with very high-risk atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Exposures: Addition of evolocumab to standard background therapy, including maximally tolerated statin therapy (ie, the maximum intensity of statin therapy a patient can safely receive), with or without ezetimibe. Main Outcomes and Measures: Major cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death), costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results: Evolocumab was associated with both increased costs and improved outcomes when added to standard background therapy. Incremental costs ranged from $22 228 to $3411, depending on the varying level of risk within the defined population. Incremental quality-adjusted life years ranged from 0.39 to 0.44. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from $56 655 to $7667 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. For a range of baseline cardiovascular event rates in patients with very high-risk atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below the generally accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds. Moreover, the ratios were below the threshold of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life-years gained for any baseline rate of 6.9 or more events per 100 patient-years. Conclusions and Relevance: At its current list price, the addition of evolocumab to standard background therapy meets accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds across a range of baseline cardiovascular event rates in patients with very high-risk atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease as defined by the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline.
Importance: In October 2018, evolocumab was made available at a reduced annual list price of $5850 in the United States. This 60% reduction was aimed at improving patient access by lowering patient copays. Shortly thereafter, the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol management guideline was released. An updated cost-effectiveness analysis of evolocumab in the United States may be therefore of interest to payers and prescribers. Objective: To present an updated cost-effectiveness analysis of evolocumab added to standard background therapy compared with standard background therapy alone in patients with very high-risk atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, reflecting the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline definition and using the new evolocumab list price. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study used the Markov model originally used in a previous study by Fonarow et al in 2017. A US societal perspective was considered, and a range of baseline cardiovascular event rates were modeled to reflect varying risk profiles in clinical practice within patients with very high-risk atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Exposures: Addition of evolocumab to standard background therapy, including maximally tolerated statin therapy (ie, the maximum intensity of statin therapy a patient can safely receive), with or without ezetimibe. Main Outcomes and Measures: Major cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death), costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results:Evolocumab was associated with both increased costs and improved outcomes when added to standard background therapy. Incremental costs ranged from $22 228 to $3411, depending on the varying level of risk within the defined population. Incremental quality-adjusted life years ranged from 0.39 to 0.44. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from $56 655 to $7667 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. For a range of baseline cardiovascular event rates in patients with very high-risk atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below the generally accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds. Moreover, the ratios were below the threshold of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life-years gained for any baseline rate of 6.9 or more events per 100 patient-years. Conclusions and Relevance: At its current list price, the addition of evolocumab to standard background therapy meets accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds across a range of baseline cardiovascular event rates in patients with very high-risk atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease as defined by the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline.
Authors: Scott M Grundy; Neil J Stone; Alison L Bailey; Craig Beam; Kim K Birtcher; Roger S Blumenthal; Lynne T Braun; Sarah de Ferranti; Joseph Faiella-Tommasino; Daniel E Forman; Ronald Goldberg; Paul A Heidenreich; Mark A Hlatky; Daniel W Jones; Donald Lloyd-Jones; Nuria Lopez-Pajares; Chiadi E Ndumele; Carl E Orringer; Carmen A Peralta; Joseph J Saseen; Sidney C Smith; Laurence Sperling; Salim S Virani; Joseph Yeboah Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2018-11-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Dhruv S Kazi; Joanne Penko; Pamela G Coxson; Andrew E Moran; Daniel A Ollendorf; Jeffrey A Tice; Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Gregg C Fonarow; Anthony C Keech; Terje R Pedersen; Robert P Giugliano; Peter S Sever; Peter Lindgren; Ben van Hout; Guillermo Villa; Yi Qian; Ransi Somaratne; Marc S Sabatine Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Marc S Sabatine; Robert P Giugliano; Anthony C Keech; Narimon Honarpour; Stephen D Wiviott; Sabina A Murphy; Julia F Kuder; Huei Wang; Thomas Liu; Scott M Wasserman; Peter S Sever; Terje R Pedersen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-03-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Dhruv S Kazi; Joanne Penko; Pamela G Coxson; David Guzman; Pengxiao C Wei; Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Suying Li; Yi Peng; Xinyue Wang; Yi Qian; Pin Xiang; Sally W Wade; Haifeng Guo; J Antonio G Lopez; Charles A Herzog; Yehuda Handelsman Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2019-02-25 Impact factor: 2.882