Search

Little is known about the attainment of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets in patients treated with statins in Australian primary healthcare setting that are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from electronic medical records of patients treated by general practitioners across Australia. LDL-C target attainment was defined as LDL-C levels ≤ 2 mmol/L for all risk groups, in line with Australian guidelines. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify the factors associated with LDL-C target attainment. Overall, 61,407 patients were included in the analysis. The mean age was 65 years (± standard deviation [SD] 12.1); 52.0% were males.. Overall, the median LDL-C level was 2.3 mmol/L (IQR = 1.8 - 2.8) and 36.0% of the study population met therapeutic targets. Increased likelihood to achieve LDL-C targets was observed in patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.92 - 2.24), stroke (OR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.39 - 1.79, P < 0.001) or chronic heart disease (OR = 1.67, 95% CI 1.55 - 1.81, P < 0.001). Patients diagnosed with dyslipidemia (OR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.55 - 0.64, P < 0.001), hypertension (OR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 - 1.00, P < 0.05) and current smokers (OR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.71 - 1.00, P < 0.05), were less likely to attain LDL-C targets, regardless of the type, intensity and length of use of the prescribed statin. Longer duration and higher intensity statin were associated with more patients achieving targeted LDL-C goal, however nearly two thirds of Australians still failed to achieve targeted outcome even after 24 months of statin therapy., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The attainment of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) therapeutic goals in real-world settings among patients receiving combination lipid-lowering therapy (LLT, statins plus non-statins) is not well characterised., Objective: To evaluate LDL-C levels and LDL-C goal attainment in patients treated with combination LLT in real-world primary care settings., Methods: A retrospective cohort study of patients treated with combination LLT. Data were drawn from general practitioner electronic medical records across Australia from 2013 to 2019. The on-treatment goal for LDL-C was < 2 mmol/L (77 mg/dL), as per Australian guidelines., Results: The cohort analysed included 9,173 individuals treated with combination LLT. The mean age was 65.8 years (standard deviation [SD] 11.5), 60.1% were males, and 56.7% had at least one cardiovascular risk factor. The median on-treatment LDL-C was 2.1 mmol/L (IQR 1.6-2.8), and overall 45.4% of the cohort met LDL-C goals, with individuals on fixed-dose combination of statins plus ezetimibe having the highest rates of achievement (49.8%). In multivariable logistic regression analyses, factors associated with LDL-C goal achievement were male sex (odds ratio [OR] 1.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-1.6, p < 0.001), aged >80 years (OR 4.2, 95% CI 1.5 - 6.6, p = 0.006), and a history of T2DM (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.5-1.9, p < 0.001) or coronary heart disease (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2 - 1.6, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: More than half of Australians on combination LLT did not achieve LDL-C goals. Urgent measures are needed to address this gap in clinical practice to minimise negative health outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest CM, SVT, MP, ST, DA and ZA have nothing to declare; SL and DT are employed by Amgen Australia Pty Ltd or other Amgen subsidiaries; GS is employed by IQVIA; EZ declares grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Shire, outside the submitted work; DL declares grants from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer and Sanofi, and past participation in advisory boards and/or receipt of honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Edwards Lifesciences, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and Shire, outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Aims: To estimate the health and economic burden of new and established cardiovascular disease from 2020 to 2029 in Australia., Methods and Results: A two-stage multistate dynamic model was developed to predict the burden of the incident and prevalent cardiovascular disease, for Australians 40-90 years old from 2020 to 2029. The model captured morbidity, mortality, years of life lived, quality-adjusted life years, healthcare costs, and productivity losses. Cardiovascular risk for the primary prevention population was derived using Australian demographic data and the Pooled Cohort Equation. Risk for the secondary prevention population was derived from the REACH registry. Input data for costs and utilities were extracted from published sources. All outcomes were annually discounted by 5%. A number of sensitivity analyses were undertaken to test the robustness of the study. Between 2020 and 2029, the model estimates 377 754 fatal and 991 375 non-fatal cardiovascular events. By 2029, 1 061 756 Australians will have prevalent cardiovascular disease (CVD). The population accrued 8 815 271 [95% uncertainty interval (UI) 8 805 083-8 841 432] years of life lived with CVD and 5 876 975 (5 551 484-6 226 045) QALYs. The total healthcare costs of CVD were projected to exceed Australian dollars (AUD) 61.89 (61.79-88.66) billion, and productivity losses will account for AUD 78.75 (49.40-295.25) billion, driving the total cost to surpass AUD 140.65 (123.13-370.23) billion., Conclusion: Cardiovascular disease in Australia has substantial impacts in terms of morbidity, mortality, and lost revenue to the healthcare system and the society. Our modelling provides important information for decision making in relation to the future burden of cardiovascular disease., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2021. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: New pharmacological therapies for the treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD) have emerged in recent years. The high rates of CVD and the need for long-term treatment to decrease risk factors makes cost-effectiveness crucial for their successful long-term implementation., Objective: This study assessed cost-effectiveness studies of novel pharmacological treatments (ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 [PCSK9] inhibitors, omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids [n-3 PUFAs], and the cardiovascular polypill) compared with standard care for the secondary prevention of CVD., Methods: We searched seven databases and the reference list of selected literature reviews for eligible cost-effective analyses (CEA) published between January 2009 and January 2020 that evaluated the above novel treatments versus standard care. Two independent reviewers performed the screening and evaluation in accordance with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement. Cost results were adapted to 2018 US dollars (US$) to facilitate comparisons between studies. Consideration of cost-effectiveness was based on the original study criteria., Results: Thirty-two studies were included in this review, most of them adopting a healthcare perspective. Studies evaluating ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors and n-3 PUFAs assessed their addition to standard care compared with standard care alone, while studies analysing the polypill evaluated the replacement of multiple monotherapies for a fixed-dose combination. Ten studies reported on ezetimibe, fifteen evaluated PCSK9 inhibitors, five focused on n-3 PUFAs and seven on the polypill. From a healthcare perspective, ezetimibe was cost effective in 62.5% of the studies (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICERs] ranged from US$27,195 to US$204,140), n-3 PUFAs in 60% (ICERs from US$57,128 to US$139,082) and the cardiovascular polypill in 100% (ICERs from dominant to US$30,731) compared with standard care. Conversely, only 10% of the studies considered PCSK9 inhibitors cost effective compared with standard care from a healthcare perspective (ICERs ranged from US$231,119 to US$1,223,831). Additionally, ezetimibe was cost effective in 50% of the studies, PCSK9 inhibitors in 33% and the polypill in 50% of the studies adopting a societal perspective. The key model-related parameters predicting cost-effectiveness included drug cost, time horizon, and the baseline risk of cardiovascular events., Conclusions: Based on current pricing and willingness-to-pay thresholds, most CEA studies considered ezetimibe, n-3 PUFAs and the polypill to be cost effective compared with standard care but not PCSK9 inhibitors for secondary prevention of CVD.