Cost effectiveness analysis of a fixed dose combination pill for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease from an individual participant data meta-analysis
Journal Articles
Overview
Research
Identity
Additional Document Info
View All
Overview
abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) continues to impart a large burden on the global population, especially in lower income countries where affordability limits the use of cardiovascular medicines. A fixed dose combination strategy of at least 2 blood pressure lowering medications and a statin with aspirin in a single pill has been shown to reduce the risk of incident CVD by 38% in primary prevention in a recent meta-analysis. We report the in-trial (median follow-up: 5 years) cost-effectiveness of a fixed dose combination (FDC) pill in different income groups based on data from that meta-analysis. METHODS: Countries were categorized using World Bank economic groups: Lower Middle Income Countries (LMIC), Upper Middle Income Countries (UMIC) and High Income Countries (HIC). Country specific costs were obtained for hospitalized events, procedures, and non-study medications (2020 USD). FDC price was based on the cheapest equivalent substitute (CES) for each component. FINDINGS: For the CES-FDC pill versus control the difference in cost was $346 (95% CI: $294-$398) per participant in Lower Middle Income Countries, $838 (95% CI: $781-$895) in Upper Middle Income Countries and $42 (95% CI: -$155 to $239) (cost-neutral) in High Income Countries. During the study period the CES-FDC pill was associated with incremental gain in quality-adjusted life years of 0.06 (95% CI: 0.04-0.08) resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $5767 (95% CI: 5735-$5799), $13,937 (95% CI: $13,893-$14,041) and $700 (95% CI: $662-$738) respectively. In subgroups analyses, the highest 10 years CVD risk subgroup had ICERs of $2033, $7322 and -$6000/QALY. INTERPRETATION: A FDC pill produced at CES costs is cost-neutral in HIC. Governments of LMI and UMI countries should assess these results based on the ICER threshold accepted in their own country and own specific health care priorities but should consider prioritizing this strategy for patients with high 10 years CVD risk as a first step. FUNDING: Population Health Research Institute.
