Limits...
Cost-effectiveness analysis of low density lipoprotein cholesterol-lowering therapy in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes in Korea: single-pill regimen (amlodipine/atorvastatin) versus double-pill regimen (amlodipine+atorvastatin).

Park JH, Lee YH, Ko SK, Cha BS - Epidemiol Health (2015)

Bottom Line: Single-pill combination therapy (amlodipine/atorvastatin) might be more effective than double-pill therapy (amlodipine+atorvastatin) in patients with diabetes and concomitant hypertension requiring statin therapy.Compared with the double-pill, the medication costs were approximately 32% lower with the single-pill.A single-pill for reductions in LDL-C is cost-effective compared with double-pill in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Pfizer Pharmaceuticals Korea Ltd., Seoul, Korea.

ABSTRACT

Objectives: Single-pill combination therapy (amlodipine/atorvastatin) might be more effective than double-pill therapy (amlodipine+atorvastatin) in patients with diabetes and concomitant hypertension requiring statin therapy. We compared the cost-effectiveness of a single-pill with that of double-pill for control of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, with the ultimate goal of cardiovascular disease prevention, in these patients using a cost-effectiveness analysis model that considered medication adherence.

Methods: Effectiveness was defined as the percentage (%) attainment of target LDL-C levels (<100 mg/dL) based on adherence for each therapy. Adherence was defined as compliance to medication (≥80% proportion of days covered). A systematic review of the literature was conducted to determine the proportion of patients who were adherent and target goal attainment based on adherence level. The annual medication costs were based on the adherence levels for each regimen. The average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER) was calculated as the cost per % attainment of the target LDL-C level.

Results: The ACER for the single-pill regimen was lower than for the double-pill regimen (4,123 vs. 6,062 Korean won per 1% achievement of target goal). Compared with the double-pill, the medication costs were approximately 32% lower with the single-pill.

Conclusion: A single-pill for reductions in LDL-C is cost-effective compared with double-pill in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

ACER based on adjusted odds ratios (A) and unadjusted odds ratios (B) in sensitivity analysis. ACER, average cost-effectiveness ratio; KRW, Korean won.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4835702&req=5

f2-epih-37-e2015010: ACER based on adjusted odds ratios (A) and unadjusted odds ratios (B) in sensitivity analysis. ACER, average cost-effectiveness ratio; KRW, Korean won.

Mentions: The sensitivity analysis regarding changes in target goal attainment rates revealed that, in both treatments, ACER decreased as the attainment rates increased, from 67 to 78%, with the same adherence rate used in the base case analysis: single-pill, from 4,123 to 3,424 KRW; double-pill, from 6,062 to 4,880 KRW) (Figure 2A). Regarding the single-pill and double-pill, the ACER of the single-pill was lower than that of the double-pill (3,424 vs. 4,880 KRW), indicating that the single-pill regimen is more efficient.


Cost-effectiveness analysis of low density lipoprotein cholesterol-lowering therapy in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes in Korea: single-pill regimen (amlodipine/atorvastatin) versus double-pill regimen (amlodipine+atorvastatin).

Park JH, Lee YH, Ko SK, Cha BS - Epidemiol Health (2015)

ACER based on adjusted odds ratios (A) and unadjusted odds ratios (B) in sensitivity analysis. ACER, average cost-effectiveness ratio; KRW, Korean won.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4835702&req=5

f2-epih-37-e2015010: ACER based on adjusted odds ratios (A) and unadjusted odds ratios (B) in sensitivity analysis. ACER, average cost-effectiveness ratio; KRW, Korean won.
Mentions: The sensitivity analysis regarding changes in target goal attainment rates revealed that, in both treatments, ACER decreased as the attainment rates increased, from 67 to 78%, with the same adherence rate used in the base case analysis: single-pill, from 4,123 to 3,424 KRW; double-pill, from 6,062 to 4,880 KRW) (Figure 2A). Regarding the single-pill and double-pill, the ACER of the single-pill was lower than that of the double-pill (3,424 vs. 4,880 KRW), indicating that the single-pill regimen is more efficient.

Bottom Line: Single-pill combination therapy (amlodipine/atorvastatin) might be more effective than double-pill therapy (amlodipine+atorvastatin) in patients with diabetes and concomitant hypertension requiring statin therapy.Compared with the double-pill, the medication costs were approximately 32% lower with the single-pill.A single-pill for reductions in LDL-C is cost-effective compared with double-pill in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Pfizer Pharmaceuticals Korea Ltd., Seoul, Korea.

ABSTRACT

Objectives: Single-pill combination therapy (amlodipine/atorvastatin) might be more effective than double-pill therapy (amlodipine+atorvastatin) in patients with diabetes and concomitant hypertension requiring statin therapy. We compared the cost-effectiveness of a single-pill with that of double-pill for control of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, with the ultimate goal of cardiovascular disease prevention, in these patients using a cost-effectiveness analysis model that considered medication adherence.

Methods: Effectiveness was defined as the percentage (%) attainment of target LDL-C levels (<100 mg/dL) based on adherence for each therapy. Adherence was defined as compliance to medication (≥80% proportion of days covered). A systematic review of the literature was conducted to determine the proportion of patients who were adherent and target goal attainment based on adherence level. The annual medication costs were based on the adherence levels for each regimen. The average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER) was calculated as the cost per % attainment of the target LDL-C level.

Results: The ACER for the single-pill regimen was lower than for the double-pill regimen (4,123 vs. 6,062 Korean won per 1% achievement of target goal). Compared with the double-pill, the medication costs were approximately 32% lower with the single-pill.

Conclusion: A single-pill for reductions in LDL-C is cost-effective compared with double-pill in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus