Cost of Prevention
1996; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 93; Issue: 10 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1161/01.cir.93.10.1774
ISSN1524-4539
Autores Tópico(s)Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
ResumoHomeCirculationVol. 93, No. 10Cost of Prevention Free AccessResearch ArticleDownload EPUBAboutView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessResearch ArticleDownload EPUBCost of Prevention The Case of Lipid Lowering Salim Yusuf and Sonia Anand Salim YusufSalim Yusuf From the Division of Cardiology and Preventive Cardiology and Therapeutics Program, Hamilton Civic Hospitals Research Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. and Sonia AnandSonia Anand From the Division of Cardiology and Preventive Cardiology and Therapeutics Program, Hamilton Civic Hospitals Research Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Originally published15 May 1996https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.93.10.1774Circulation. 1996;93:1774–1776A vast body of epidemiological studies has demonstrated a continuous relationship between serum cholesterol levels and CHD whereby the risk of CHD increases across the entire range of cholesterol values. A 10% reduction in cholesterol level over a period of several decades has been associated with a 30% reduction in CHD incidence, after correction for a number of confounders and adjustments for measurement errors.1 Clinical trials not only have addressed the question whether decreases in cholesterol levels will reduce CHD but have demonstrated how soon such benefits may be observed. Furthermore, comparison of the magnitude of benefit of relatively short-term treatment in the trials (eg, a few years) versus the theoretical maximum of long-term differences predicted from the epidemiological studies (eg, several decades) provides a framework to assess the potential long-term benefits of sustained cholesterol reduction, well beyond the duration of the trials.The first generation of lipid-lowering trials (Helsinki [gemfibrozil],2 WHO [clofibrate],3 LRC-CPPT [cholestyramine]4 ) used drugs that lowered cholesterol only modestly (about 10%); some of these drugs produced side effects, so that compliance with treatment was suboptimal, and the studies were consequently inadequately powered to provide reliable estimation of the effects of lipid lowering on mortality. Although at first glance, the results of these trials appeared to be inconclusive or even contradictory, a comprehensive overview of these trials in an epidemiological context1 provided a coherent result: the gains in CHD reduction were related to the degree of cholesterol lowering and the duration of the intervention.More recently, with the availability of 3-hydroxy-3 methyl glutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors, the degree of cholesterol lowering is about 25%, a substantial effect that is 2.5 times that seen in the first-generation trials with cholestyramine or the fibrates. This large effect, combined with an increased duration of treatment in trials of high-risk populations, resulted in much larger reductions in CHD rates that were statistically significant. These trials also were able to demonstrate clear reductions in total mortality56 because they were largely confined to high-risk individuals, eg, secondary prevention plus high cholesterol levels (4S: >6.7 mmol/L) or primary prevention with very high cholesterol levels (West of Scotland Prevention Study: >7.0 mmol/L). More recently, other secondary prevention trials have included patients with lower baseline cholesterol levels CARE <6.2 mmol/L,7 Post-CABG Trial: LDL <3.6 mmol/L8 ). The CARE trial, which enrolled 4159 post-MI patients with a mean baseline cholesterol value of 5.9 mmol/L (LDL of 4.0 mmol/L) at initial screening, achieved a 20% reduction in total cholesterol with pravastatin and demonstrated a 24% reduction in CV death and MI after 5 years.9 The Post-CABG surgery study,8 which included 1351 patients between 1 and 12 years after their initial surgery (mean, 4.5 years), randomized patients to two strategies: moderate lowering of LDL cholesterol (to a mean of 3.5 mmol/L) versus aggressive LDL lowering (to a mean of 2.4 mmol/L). There was a 29% reduction in relative risk in the patients who demonstrated substantial progression of saphenous vein graft disease (P<.0001), an 18% reduction in major CV events (P<.09), and about a 25% risk reduction in the composite of major CV events and repeat revascularization procedures (P<.02). Collectively, these trials support the conclusion that cholesterol-lowering therapies aimed at a reduction in total cholesterol of approximately 20% to 25% produce important reductions in CV events in patients with preexisting vascular disease across a broad range of cholesterol values within the relatively short time frame of 5 years. Although these reductions in CV events are substantial, the greatest impact of cholesterol lowering occurs in individuals with the highest baseline cholesterol levels that are also associated with the highest baseline risk (Figure).In this issue of Circulation, a cost-minimization analysis of 4S (the study with the highest baseline cholesterol and risk) is presented by Pedersen et al.10 Cost-minimization analyses do not consider the potential benefits of therapy in comparison with the costs of therapy; rather, they consider the healthcare utilization costs and assume that the clinical effects are equivalent to the alternative treatment strategy. The deciding issue to accept or reject a proposed therapy is based on net cost. This analysis10 used data that were collected, prospectively provides a reliable estimate of the approximate costs of treatment over the period of time of the study, and concludes that the drug costs of treatment are largely offset by savings that result from fewer hospitalizations for myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or revascularization procedures.A number of additional issues are worth exploring in an attempt to understand the full implications of this analysis. Conversion of the 4S cost-minimization analysis to a cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that treatment with a "statin" prevents a major CV event at a 5-year cost of $11 640 and prevents a death at a 5-year cost of $23 280. This calculation is comparable to the estimates by Goldman et al11 indicating that in secondary prevention, when 20 mg/d of lovastatin is used in individuals with serum cholesterol >6.4 mmol/L, the cost per year of life saved is $25 000. Compared with other cost-effectiveness analyses of a variety of commonly accepted treatments, this estimate is very favorable.12 A previous analysis13 of the LRC-CPPT reported a cost effectiveness of ≈$237 400 per year of life saved when cholestyramine was used in individuals with total cholesterol >6.8 mmol/L. Clearly, all cost-effectiveness analyses, as we would expect, demonstrate more favorable cost-effectiveness ratios for individuals who are at higher absolute risk of CHD events and who have higher pretreatment cholesterol levels. Therefore, cost effectiveness in patients with vascular disease but lower baseline cholesterol values would not be expected to be as favorable. Nevertheless, lipid lowering by use of a statin is likely to be cost effective compared with other treatments for CV disease even when the background risk is half that seen in the 4S trial. Perhaps the only primary prevention strategy utilizing cholesterol-lowering agents that will prove to be relatively cost effective is for patients with an increased baseline risk (by virtue of other risk factors, such as diabetes or hypertension) in addition to high pretreatment cholesterol levels.However, these analyses may not provide a complete picture if we assume that the reduction of cholesterol and its relationship to the reduction of CHD events remains constant over time. First, in the 4S study and the other three studies cited above, there was little or no effect during the first year or two of treatment, but at the end of 5 years of follow-up, impressive differences emerged, and the survival curves continued to diverge. This suggests that with more prolonged treatment, benefits of sustained cholesterol lowering are likely to increase in subsequent years until the effect size reaches the theoretical maximal benefit predicted from a similar degree of cholesterol difference on the basis of the epidemiological studies. For example, on the basis of the epidemiological data, a 20% reduction in cholesterol levels over several decades could be expected to lead to a 60% reduction in CHD events, a difference that is larger than the benefit seen at the end of 4S and other studies. Second, the relative impact of a specific difference in cholesterol is age dependent, as the epidemiological data suggest that the greatest benefits of cholesterol reduction occur in the youngest age group and that the increased risk of CHD in relation to high serum cholesterol decreases with increasing age. For example, among individuals aged 30 to 40 years, a 10% reduction in cholesterol results in a >50% reduction in CHD, whereas a similar cholesterol difference in a 60- or 70-year-old results in a 20% difference in CHD.1 Although the relative treatment benefits may appear to be larger among younger individuals, this is counterbalanced by their lower baseline risk of CHD events. Therefore, the overall absolute risk reduction in a given individual will depend on the age of initiation of treatment, the duration of intervention, and the inherent risk of a future vascular event. The latter is only partly determined by an individual's cholesterol level and is also dependent on the presence or absence of other risk factors (eg, blood pressure, diabetes, and tobacco use) and the presence or absence of vascular disease. All these factors should be taken into account in decisions regarding initiation of lipid-lowering therapy.A separate but fundamental conceptual issue is the distinction between the costs of prevention of an acute infectious disease compared with the costs of prevention of chronic disease.14 In the first scenario, an individual in whom an infectious disease death is avoided in childhood or young adulthood can be expected to have a lifespan that is close to that of the average population. Such individuals rarely have any disability and would be expected to be reasonably productive. By contrast, with chronic diseases, the disease is generally not totally prevented but rather is postponed, and many individuals will probably still succumb to it, albeit a decade or two later. In some cases, although survival is prolonged, some individuals may be partly disabled, and their ability to be productive may be limited. Although this is clearly humanely worthwhile, in any cost-effectiveness analysis of chronic diseases, one should consider that costs are delayed rather than reduced; ultimately, the overall cost (spread over a longer time period) may be substantial and greater than any short-term analysis may demonstrate.A third fundamental issue relates to the relatively modest population impact of any strategy that is applied to a highly select group of high-risk individuals. Because the relationship of cholesterol to CHD is graded across a broad range, strategies that shift the distribution of the entire curve by even a modest amount will have a substantial benefit. For example, a shift in the mean cholesterol level of the population by 10% would prevent 30% of all CHD events, whereas lifelong treatment of all individuals with a cholesterol level above the 90th percentile with a statin (achieving a 20% to 25% cholesterol reduction) would only prevent about 15% to 20% of all CHD events. Therefore, although population strategies to lower cholesterol may have only a relatively modest impact on cholesterol in a specific subgroup, the benefits spread over the entire population are substantial. These arguments suggest that both approaches, a population-based "low-tech" approach and a selective approach of treating high-risk individuals with cholesterol-lowering drugs, are integral and important components of a comprehensive approach to prevention of CHD.Selected Abbreviations and AcronymsCABG=coronary artery bypass graftCARE=Cholesterol and Recurrent EventsCHD=coronary heart diseaseCV=cardiovascularLRC-CPPT=Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention TrialMI=myocardial infarctionThe opinions expressed in this editorial are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.Download figureDownload PowerPoint Figure 1. A, Cholesterol lowering in secondary prevention trials. CV event rates in the control (C) and treatment (T) groups are plotted as a function of the baseline cholesterol levels. Note that there is a reduction in CV events across a broad range of mean cholesterol values. B, The events from different trials are plotted in relation to the cholesterol levels during the randomized period. Note the continuous relation across the entire range of cholesterol values depicted. The CV events included vary slightly between trials: CV death or MI in 4S; CV death or MI in CARE; CV death, MI, stroke, revascularization, or unexpected death in Post-CABG Trial. The total cholesterol level in the Post-CABG Trial is derived using the values for LDL, triglycerides, and HDL.FootnotesCorrespondence to Dr Salim Yusuf, Hamilton General Hospital, 237 Barton St E, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8L 2X2. E-mail [email protected] References 1 Law MR, Wald NJ, Thompson SG. By how much and how quickly does reduction in serum cholesterol concentration lower risk of ischemic heart disease? BMJ.1994; 308:367-373. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2 Frick MH, Elo O, Haapa K, Heinonen OP, Heinsalmi P, Helo P, Huttunen JK, Kaitaniemi P, Koskinen P, Manninen V, et al. Helsinki Heart Study: primary-prevention trial with gemfibrozil in middle-aged men with dyslipidemia—safety of treatment, changes in risk factors, and incidence of coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med.1987; 317:1237-1245. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3 Committee of Principal Investigators. A co-operative trial in the primary prevention of ischemic heart disease using clofibrate: report from the Committee of Principal Investigators. Br Heart J.1978; 40:1069-1118. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4 Lipid Research Clinics Program. The Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial results, I: reduction in incidence of coronary heart disease. JAMA.1984; 251:351-364. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5 Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin survival Study (4S). Lancet.1994; 344:1383-1389. MedlineGoogle Scholar6 Shepard J, Cobbe SM, Ford I, Isles CG, Lorimer AR, MacFarlane PW, McKillop JH, Packard CJ. Prevention of coronary heart disease with pravastatin in men with hypercholesterolemia. N Engl J Med.1995; 333:1301-1307. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7 Pfeffer MA, Sacks FM, Moye LA, Brown L, Rouleau JL, Hartley LH, Rouleau J, Grimm R, Sestier F, Wickemeyer W, Cole TG, Braunwald E. Cholesterol and Recurrent Events: a secondary prevention trial for normolipidemic patients. Am J Cardiol.1995; 76:98C-106C. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8 Campeau L, Hunninghake DB, Domanski MJ. Post-CABG Trial: design and results. Reported at the American College of Cardiology 45th Annual Scientific Session, Orlando, Fla: March 24-26, 1996. Google Scholar9 Braunwald E, Pfeffer M, Sacks F. CARE Trial Results. Reported at the American College of Cardiology 45th Annual Scientific Session, Orlando, Fla: March 24-26, 1996. Google Scholar10 Pedersen TR, Kjekshus J, Berg K, Olsson AG, Wilhelmsen L, Wedel H, Pyörälä K, Miettinen T, Haghfelt T, Faergeman O, Thorgeirsson G, Jönsson B, Schwartz JS, for the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. Cholesterol lowering and the use of healthcare resources: results of the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study. Circulation.1996; 93:1796-1802. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11 Goldman L, Weinstein MC, Goldman PA, Williams LW. Cost-effectiveness of HMG-CoA reductase inhibition for primary and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. JAMA.1991; 265:1145-1151. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12 Kupersmith J, Holmes-Rovner M, Hogan A, Rovner D, Gardiner J. Cost-effectiveness analysis in heart disease, I: general principles. Prog Cardiovasc Dis.1994; 37:161-184. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13 Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent or treat coronary heart disease. Annu Rev Public Health.1985; 6:41-63. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14 Rose GA. The Strategy of Preventive Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1992.Google Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Saad D, Soliman M, Baiomy A, Yassin M and El-Sawy H (2017) Effects of Karela (Bitter Melon; Momordica charantia) on genes of lipids and carbohydrates metabolism in experimental hypercholesterolemia: biochemical, molecular and histopathological study, BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 10.1186/s12906-017-1833-x, 17:1, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2017. Pauriah M, Elder D, Ogston S, Noman A, Majeed A, Wyatt J, Choy A, MacDonald T, Struthers A and Lang C (2014) High-potency statin and ezetimibe use and mortality in survivors of an acute myocardial infarction: a population-based study, Heart, 10.1136/heartjnl-2013-304678, 100:11, (867-872), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2014. Matsui S, Yamane T, Takita T, Oishi Y and Kobayashi-Hattori K (2013) The hypocholesterolemic activity of Momordica charantia fruit is mediated by the altered cholesterol- and bile acid–regulating gene expression in rat liver, Nutrition Research, 10.1016/j.nutres.2013.05.002, 33:7, (580-585), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2013. Kobayashi T, Ito T and Shiomi M (2011) Roles of the WHHL Rabbit in Translational Research on Hypercholesterolemia and Cardiovascular Diseases, Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, 10.1155/2011/406473, 2011, (1-10), . Khanal S, Obeidat O, Hudson M, Al-Mallah M, Bloome M, Lu M, Greenbaum A, Kugelmass A and Weaver W (2007) Active Lipid Management In Coronary Artery Disease (ALMICAD) Study, The American Journal of Medicine, 10.1016/j.amjmed.2006.06.048, 120:8, (734.e11-734.e17), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2007. Johnson S and Sirtori C (2005) Soy Proteins, Cholesterolemia, and Atherosclerosis Soy in Health and Disease Prevention, 10.1201/9781420026566.ch2, (17-41), Online publication date: 29-Aug-2005. Khanal S, Obeidat O, Lu M, Douthat L, Hudson M, Greenbaum A, Kugelmass A and Weaver W (2006) Dyslipidemia in patients with angiographically confirmed coronary artery disease-an opportunity for improvement, Clinical Cardiology, 10.1002/clc.4960271011, 27:10, (577-580), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2004. Davidson M and Toth P (2004) Comparative effects of lipid-lowering therapies, Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases, 10.1016/j.pcad.2004.04.007, 47:2, (73-104), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2004. Dzator J, Hendrie D, Burke V, Gianguilio N, Gillam H, Beilin L and Houghton S (2004) A randomized trial of interactive group sessions achieved greater improvements in nutrition and physical activity at a tiny increase in cost, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.10.009, 57:6, (610-619), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2004. Irwin S (2004) Cardiac Disease and Pathophysiology Cardiopulmonary Physical Therapy, 10.1016/B978-032301840-1.50009-8, (123-146), . Burke V, Giangiulio N, Gillam H, Beilin L and Houghton S (2003) Physical activity and nutrition programs for couples: A randomized controlled trial, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 10.1016/S0895-4356(02)00610-8, 56:5, (421-432), Online publication date: 1-May-2003. (2002) Long-term effectiveness and safety of pravastatin in 9014 patients with coronary heart disease and average cholesterol concentrations: the LIPID trial follow-up, The Lancet, 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08351-4, 359:9315, (1379-1387), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2002. Gould K (2002) Coronary Atherosclerosis: Chronic Coronary Syndromes Pan Vascular Medicine, 10.1007/978-3-642-56225-9_50, (779-820), . Shaw L and Redberg R (2001) From clinical trials to public health policy: the path from imaging to screening, The American Journal of Cardiology, 10.1016/S0002-9149(01)01787-8, 88:2, (62-65), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2001. Pedersen T (2001) Pro and con: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering is and will be the key to the future of lipid management∗∗This article represents one side of a debate regarding the role of lipid subfractions in cardiovascular risk management; the opposing argument can be found in the accompanying article by Gerd Assmann, MD., The American Journal of Cardiology, 10.1016/S0002-9149(01)01449-7, 87:5, (8-12), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2001. Sirtori C and Lovati M (2001) Soy proteins and cardiovascular disease, Current Atherosclerosis Reports, 10.1007/s11883-001-0010-2, 3:1, (47-53), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2001. SIKAND G, KASHYAP M, WONG N and HSU J (2000) Dietitian Intervention Improves Lipid Values and Saves Medication Costs in Men with Combined Hyperlipidemia and a History of Niacin Noncompliance, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 10.1016/S0002-8223(00)00066-3, 100:2, (218-224), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2000. Heinrich F (2000) Lipidsenker und Reokklusionsprophylaxe Gerinnungsaktive Therapie beim akuten Koronarsyndrom, 10.1007/978-3-642-59667-4_8, (69-88), . Liesbon P and Amsterdam E (1999) Prevention of coronary heart disease Part I. Primary prevention, Disease-a-Month, 10.1016/S0011-5029(99)90016-0, 45:12, (497-571), Online publication date: 1-Dec-1999. Schwartz J (1999) Comparative economic data regarding lipid-lowering drugs, American Heart Journal, 10.1016/S0002-8703(99)70440-0, 137:5, (S97-S104), Online publication date: 1-May-1999. Ballantyne C (1998) Low-density lipoproteins and risk for coronary artery disease, The American Journal of Cardiology, 10.1016/S0002-9149(98)00769-3, 82:8, (3-12), Online publication date: 1-Nov-1998. van der Weijden T, Knottnerus J, Ament A, Stoffers H and Grol R (1998) Economic evaluation of cholesterol-related interventions in general practice. An appraisal of the evidence, Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 10.1136/jech.52.9.586, 52:9, (586-594), Online publication date: 1-Sep-1998. Gould K (1998) Coronary arteriography and lipid lowering: limitations, new concepts, and new paradigms in cardiovascular medicine, The American Journal of Cardiology, 10.1016/S0002-9149(98)00592-X, 82:6, (12M-21M), Online publication date: 1-Sep-1998. SIKAND G, KASHYAP M and YANG I (1998) Medical Nutrition Therapy Lowers Serum Cholesterol and Saves Medication Costs in Men with Hypercholesterolemia, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 10.1016/S0002-8223(98)00204-1, 98:8, (889-894), Online publication date: 1-Aug-1998. Gould K (1998) New concepts and paradigms in cardiovascular medicine: the noninvasive management of coronary artery disease, The American Journal of Medicine, 10.1016/S0002-9343(98)00140-5, 104:6, (2S-17S), Online publication date: 1-Jun-1998. MRCP(UK) A, FRACP J, FRACP M and FACC H (1998) The roles for coronary surgery and angioplasty in the management of patients with stable angina: evidence and decision making, Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 10.1111/j.1365-2753.1998.tb00073.x, 4:2, (93-102), Online publication date: 1-May-1998. Thompson D and Bowman G (1998) Evidence for the effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation, Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 10.1016/S0964-3397(98)80099-2, 14:1, (38-48), Online publication date: 1-Feb-1998. Bradshaw N and Walker R (1997) Prescription of statins: cost implications of evidence-based treatment applied to a health authority population, Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 10.1111/j.1365-2710.1997.tb00021.x, 22:5-6, (379-389), Online publication date: 1-Oct-1997. Thompson D and Bowman G (1997) Evidence for the effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation, Clinical Effectiveness in Nursing, 10.1016/S1361-9004(06)80002-6, 1:2, (64-74), Online publication date: 1-Jun-1997. Ivandic B, Müller-Bardorff M and Katus H (1997) Rationale Therapie bei koronarer Herzkrankheit Betablocker — im Mittelpunkt der Forschung, 10.1007/978-3-642-60716-5_6, (49-55), . Stark R (1996) Review of the Major Intervention Trials of Lowering Coronary Artery Disease Risk Through Cholesterol Reduction, The American Journal of Cardiology, 10.1016/S0002-9149(96)00657-1, 78:6, (13-19), Online publication date: 1-Sep-1996. Marcus A (1996) Rationale for Effective Treatment of Hypercholesterolemia, The American Journal of Cardiology, 10.1016/S0002-9149(96)00656-X, 78:6, (4-12), Online publication date: 1-Sep-1996. May 15, 1996Vol 93, Issue 10 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics Copyright © 1996 by American Heart Associationhttps://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.93.10.1774 Originally publishedMay 15, 1996 KeywordsEditorialscholesterolpreventionepidemiologycost-benefit analysis Advertisement
Referência(s)