Search

Background: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is an important indicator in the development and management of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Herein, we describe the management of LDL-C with lipid-lowering therapy, among patients diagnosed with clinical ASCVD in Alberta, Canada., Methods: A retrospective study was conducted by linking multiple health system databases to examine clinical characteristics, treatments, and LDL-C assessments. Patients with ASCVD were identified using a specific case definition on the basis of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification/International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision, Canada codes between 2011 and 2015. LDL-C was assessed at the first measurement (index test) and second measurement (follow-up test) during the study period. LDL-C levels were evaluated on the basis of the 2016 Canadian Cardiovascular Society guideline recommendations for achieving < 2.0 mmol/L or a 50% reduction. Statin therapies were categorized as low-, moderate-, and high-intensity., Results: Among the 281,665 individuals identified with ASCVD during the study period, 219,488 (77.9%) had an index LDL-C test, whereas 120,906 (55.1%) and 144,607 (65.9%) were prescribed lipid-lowering therapy before and after their index test, respectively. Most patients who received any lipid-lowering therapy were receiving moderate-/high-intensity statins (n = 133,029; 60.6%). Among the study cohort who had 2 LDL-C tests (n = 91,841; 32.6%), 48.5% of patients who received any lipid-lowering therapy did not achieve LDL-C levels < 2.0 at index date, whereas 36.6% did not achieve LDL-C levels < 2.0 or a 50% reduction at the follow-up test., Conclusions: The current study revealed that only two-thirds of patients with ASCVD were receiving pharmacotherapy and of those, a significant proportion did not reach recommended LDL-C levels. A remarkable treatment gap was identified for at-risk ASCVD patients. Further implementation strategies are required to address this undermanagement., (Copyright © 2019 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Discounting has long been a matter of controversy in the field of health economic evaluations. How to weigh future health effects has resulted in ongoing discussions. These discussions are imminently relevant for health care interventions with current costs but future benefits. Different approaches to discount health effects have been proposed. In this study, we estimated the impact of different approaches for discounting health benefits of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination., Methods: An HPV model was used to estimate the impact of different discounting approaches on the present value of health effects. For the constant discount approaches, we varied the discount rate for health effects ranging from 0% to 4%. Next, the impact of relevant alternative discounting approaches was estimated, including hyperbolic, proportional, stepwise, and time-shifted discounting., Results: The present value of health effects gained through HPV vaccination varied strongly when varying discount rates and approaches. The application of the current Dutch guidelines resulted in a present value of health effects that was eight or two times higher than that produced when using the proportional discounting approach or when using the internationally more common 4% discount rate for health effects, respectively. Obviously, such differences translate into large variations in corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios., Conclusion: The exact discount rate and approach chosen in an economic evaluation importantly impact the projected value of health benefits of HPV vaccination. Investigating alternative discounting approaches in health-economic analysis is important, especially for vaccination programs yielding health effects far into the future. Our study underlines the relevance of ongoing discussions on how and at what rates to discount., (Copyright © 2012 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)