Prevalence and Coexistence of Cardiovascular Comorbidities among the US Dyslipidemic Population Aged ≥ 65 Years by Lipid-Lowering Medication Use Status

Abstract

Using data from the 2001–2002, 2003–2004, and 2005–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, we generated current estimates of the prevalence and overlap of cardiovascular comorbidities among older US adults (aged ≥ 65 years) with dyslipidemia, stratified by lipid-lowering medication use. We estimated that among the 32.5 million older US adults, 67% (21.8 million) are dyslipidemic. Among these subjects, the prevalence of congestive heart failure (CHF) is 9.9% (2.2 million); coronary heart disease (CHD): 27.0% (5.9 million); history of stroke: 10.4% (2.3 million); diabetes: 26.5% (5.8 million); and ≥ 1 of these comorbidities: 51.2% (11.1 million). Among dyslipidemic subjects who are receiving lipid-lowering medication (10.4 million), these figures are CHF: 10.1% (1.0 million); CHD: 29.6% (3.1 million); history of stroke: 12.3% (1.3 million); diabetes: 31.5% (3.3 million); and ≥ 1 of these comorbidities: 55.3% (5.7 million); compared with those who are not receiving lipid-lowering medication (11.4 million), CHF: 9.8% (1.1 million); CHD: 24.7% (2.8 million); history of stroke: 8.6% (1 million); diabetes: 21.9% (2.5 million); and ≥ 1 of these comorbidities: 47.5% (5.4 million). Among older US adults with dyslipidemia, 51.2% have ≥ 1 of the cardiovascular conditions studied. Among those who are receiving lipid-lowering medication, 55.3% report having comorbidities that put them at high risk for new or recurring cardiovascular events. Even more noteworthy is that 47.5% of dyslipidemic older adults who are not taking statins also have significant comorbidities. This highlights a critical unmet medical need for this growing population, which, solely based on age, is more likely to be at risk for cardiovascular events.     

Predictors of health care costs in adults with diabetes

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of baseline A1c, cardiovascular disease, and depression on subsequent health care costs among adults with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A prospective analysis was performed of data from a patient survey and medical record review merged with 3 years of medical claims. Costs were estimated using detailed data on resource use and Medicare payment methodologies. Generalized linear models were used to analyze costs related to clinical predictors after adjusting for demographic and socioeconomic factors. RESULTS: In multivariate analysis of 1,694 adults with diabetes, 3-year costs in those with coronary heart disease (CHD) and hypertension were over 300% of those with diabetes only (46,879 dollars vs. 14,233 dollars; P < 0.05). Depression was associated with a 50% increase in costs (31,967 dollars vs. 21,609 dollars; P < 0.05). Relative to those with a baseline A1c of 6%, those with an A1c of 10% had 3-year costs that were 11% higher (26,408 dollars vs. 23,873 dollars; P < 0.05). Higher A1c predicted higher costs only for those with baseline A1c >7.5% (P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: In adults with diabetes, CHD, hypertension, and depression spectrum disorders more strongly predicted future costs than the A1c level. Concurrent with aggressive efforts to control glucose, greater efforts to prevent or control CHD, hypertension, and depression are necessary to control health care costs in adults with diabetes.     

Net health plan savings from reference pricing for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in elderly British Columbia residents

BACKGROUND: Reference drug pricing (RP) is a cost-sharing strategy commonly used to control drug expenditures. Under RP, a benefit plan fully reimburses medications that are equally or less expensive than the reference price, and requires patients to pay the extra cost of therapeutically equivalent but higher priced drugs. Critics argued that drug plan savings are offset by administrative costs and increased spending on other health services. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated net healthcare savings in beneficiaries >or=65 years from the perspective of the British Columbia provincial health insurance system after it applied RP to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in 1997. METHODS: We estimated savings in new users of antihypertensives after the start of RP plus associated administrative costs and savings from reductions in retail drug prices. Findings were integrated with earlier results on the consequences of RP on expenditures for drugs, physicians, and hospitalizations among all seniors who used ACE inhibitors before the introduction of RP. RESULTS: During the first year after the implementation of RP, savings for continuous users were CAN dollars 6.0 million. Savings for new users were dollars 0.2 million. Approximately five sixths thereof were achieved by utilization changes and one sixth by cost shifting to patients. There were no savings through drug price changes. Administering RP cost dollars 0.42 million. Overall net savings were estimated to be dollars 5.8 million during the first year after the start of RP. The magnitude of these savings is equal to 6% of all cardiovascular drug expenditures in seniors. After 10 years, approximately 50% of savings will be achieved by new users. CONCLUSION: We observed substantial net savings from RP for ACE inhibitors for the provincial health insurance system in British Columbia, although there were generous exemptions from the policy. In other jurisdictions, savings could be higher if drug prices decline after the start of reference pricing.     

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and LDL-C goal attainment among elderly patients treated with rosuvastatin compared with other statins in routine clinical practice

Background: Reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels lowers the risk of consequences of cardiovascular disease. Research has confirmed these benefits in elderly patients. The 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A inhibitors (ie, statins) have long-standing proven efficacy in reducing levels of LDL-C and total cholesterol.Objective: The goal of this study was to compare change in LDL-C from baseline and National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III LDL-C goal attainment in a population of elderly patients (aged ≥65 years) treated with rosuvastatin versus other statins in routine clinical practice.Methods: This was a retrospective cohort analysis using medical and pharmacy claims data linked to clinical laboratory results from a large managed care health plan of commercial and Medicare Advantage members in the United States. Included were members aged ≥65 years who were newly treated with statins (index date) from August 1, 2003, through February 28, 2005. All subjects were continuously enrolled for 12 months preindex and ≥30 days postindex, with variable follow-up until therapy discontinuation or end of health plan eligibility. Based on NCEP ATP III guidelines, patients were grouped into risk categories with associated LDL-C goals. The primary outcomes were change in LDL-C from baseline and attainment of NCEP ATP III LDL-C goal among patients not at goal before starting therapy. Generalized linear modeling was used to assess percent change in LDL-C from baseline, controlling for covariates (including age, sex, NCEP risk level, medication possession ratio, preindex LDL-C value, days from index date to postindex LDL-C value, and number of preindex office visits for dyslipidemia). In the subset of patients not at goal before starting therapy, logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of individual patients on other statins reaching goal as compared with rosuvastatin and to produce predicted percent attaining LDL-C goal on individual statins.Results: Of the 2227 elderly new users of statin therapy, 8.0% started on rosuvastatin, 38.9% started on atorvastatin, 3.0% on fluvastatin, 31.0% on lovastatin, 5.5% on pravastatin, and 13.6% on simvastatin. Females comprised 57.7% of the population, and the mean (SD) age was 73 (5.8) years (range, 65–94 years). The mean (SD) doses of rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin were 10.65 (4.59), 16.0 (12.78), 66.31 (23.56), 27.38 (14.07), 32.86 (16.46), and 28.1 (26.2) mg, respectively. After controlling for covariates, rosuvastatin-treated patients had a 35.8% decrease in LDL-C from baseline, which was significantly greater compared with patients in the atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin (29.3%, 21.9%, 22.5%, 22.0%, and 24.9%, respectively; P < 0.05) groups. Atorvastatin (odds ratio [OR], 0.25; 95% CI, 0.12–0.52), fluvastatin (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02–0.14), lovastatin (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.05–0.20), pravastatin (OR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.03–0.20), and simvastatin (OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.06–0.30) were less likely to attain LDL-C goal compared with rosuvastatin (all, P < 0.001). Predicted percent attaining goal was 93.6% among rosuvastatin users, significantly greater than users of atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin (81.2%, 55.8%, 66.8%, 64.1%, and 72.8%, respectively; P < 0.05).Conclusion: In this elderly patient population, rosuvastatin was a more effective treatment for reducing LDL-C levels and attaining NCEP ATP III LDL-C goals than the other statins.     

Management of hypercholesterolaemia in the patient with diabetes

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of death in patients with type 2 diabetes. The hyperglycaemia that characterises this disease is often accompanied by a cluster of other risk factors, such as dyslipidaemia and hypertension, and effective management of the patient with diabetes requires treatment directed at correcting all of the abnormalities that increase cardiovascular risk. Approximately 90% of patients with diabetes have type 2 disease, and dyslipidaemia in these patients is characterised by elevated plasma triglycerides and very-low-density lipoproteins (VLDL), by reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and by a shift in LDL distribution towards small, dense particles. All of these lipid abnormalities are important risk factors for CHD. Retrospective subgroup analysis and prospective studies have shown that lipid-lowering therapy can slow the progression of atherosclerosis and reduce the risk for cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes, and both the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III and American Diabetes Association have established aggressive treatment goals for lipid-lowering therapy in these patients. All of the major medications used to treat hyperlipidaemia in other populations (niacin, fibrates, bile acid sequestrants and statins) have been used effectively to improve the plasma lipid profile in patients with diabetes. Statins are generally accepted as first-line treatment for these patients, although fibrates also have an important role in patients with pronounced hypertriglyceridaemia. Statins significantly reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in a broad range of patients. These agents also have substantial effects on plasma triglycerides and, in patients with hypertriglyceridaemia, lower very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-C) to approximately the same extent as LDL-C. In this regard, the new agent rosuvastatin has been shown, in recent trials, to produce greater decreases in these lipoproteins than currently marketed compounds. Aggressive use of agents that attack the lipid abnormalities characteristic of patients with type 2 diabetes has the potential to significantly reduce CHD risk in these individuals.     

Achieving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals in high-risk patients in managed care: comparison of rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, and simvastatin in the SOLAR trial

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate attainment of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal of less than 100 mg/dL with statin treatments in managed care patients at high risk for coronary heart disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial (SOLAR [Satisfying Optimal LDL-C ATP III goals with Rosuvastatin]) performed at 145 US clinical centers from June 5, 2002 to July 12, 2004, high-risk men and women in a managed care population received typical starting doses of rosuvastatin (10 mg/d), atorvastatin (10 mg/d), or simvastatin (20 mg/d) for 6 weeks. Those who did not meet the LDL-C target of less than 100 mg/dL at 6 weeks had their dose titrated (doubled), and all patients were followed up for another 6 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 1632 patients were randomized to 1 of the 3 treatment regimens. After 6 weeks, 65% of patients taking rosuvastatin reached the LDL-C target of less than 100 mg/dL vs 41% with atorvastatin and 39% with simvastatin (P<.001 vs rosuvastatin for both). After 12 weeks, 76% of patients taking rosuvastatin reached the LDL-C target of less than 100 mg/dL vs 58% with atorvastatin and 53% with simvastatin (P<.001 vs rosuvastatin for both). Reductions in the LDL-C level, total cholesterol level, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) level, and non-HDL-C/HDL-C ratio were significantly greater with rosuvastatin at both 6 and 12 weeks compared with the other statins. Adverse events were similar in type and frequency in all treatment groups, and only 3% of all patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. No myopathy was observed, no clinically important impact on renal function was attributed to study medications, and clinically important increases in serum transaminases were rare. CONCLUSION: In a managed care population, 10 mg of rosuvastatin treatment resulted in more patients reaching the NCEP ATP III LDL-C goal compared with 10 mg of atorvastatin and 20 mg of simvastatin, potentially reducing the need for titration visits.     

Indirect cost of HIV infection in England

BACKGROUND: Few studies have estimated the indirect costs of care for HIV infection in England by stage of infection at a population level. OBJECTIVE: This study estimated annual indirect costs of the HIV epidemic in England in 1997-1998 from both a public-sector and societal perspective. METHODS: Service costs for HIV-infected individuals were indexed to 1997-1998 English prices. Average annual indirect costs included the costs of statutory, community, and informal services; disability payments; and lost economic productivity by stage of HIV infection. Disability payments were excluded from the societal perspective, whereas the degree of lost economic productivity was varied for the sensitivity analyses. Total average annual indirect costs by stage of HIV infection were calculated, as were population-based costs by stage of HIV infection and overall population costs. RESULTS: Annual indirect costs from the public-sector and societal perspectives, respectively, ranged from pound sterling 3169 (dollars 5252) to pound sterling 3931 (dollars 6515) per person-year for asymptomatic individuals, pound sterling 5302 (dollars 8787) to pound sterling 7929 (dollars 13,140) for patients with symptomatic non-AIDS, and pound sterling 9956 (dollars 16,499) to pound sterling 21,014 (dollars 34,825) for patients with AIDS. Estimated population-based indirect costs from the public-sector perspective varied between pound sterling 109 million (dollars 181 million) and pound sterling 145 million (dollars 241 million) for 1997-1998, respectively, comprising between 58% and 124% of direct treatment costs for triple drug therapy in England during 1997. From the societal perspective, estimated population-based costs varied between pound sterling 84 million (dollars 138 million) and pound sterling 119 million (dollars 198 million) in 1997-1998, comprising between 45% and 102% of direct treatment costs and cost of care, respectively, during 1997. CONCLUSIONS: Average indirect costs increase as HIV-infected individuals' illness progresses. Whether one takes a public-sector or societal perspective, indirect costs add a considerable amount to the cost of delivering health care to HIV-infected individuals. Both direct and indirect costs, when obtainable, should be used to assess the economic consequences of HIV infection and treatment interventions.     

Management of dyslipidemias in the age of statins

Evidence for the effectiveness of lipid-lowering therapy in reducing CHD risk continues to emerge. In primary prevention, clinical trials have demonstrated a benefit for middle-aged, high-risk men with high LDL cholesterol and, more recently, for men and women with "average" LDL and low HDL cholesterol. Although low HDL cholesterol, small dense LDL particles, elevated lipoprotein (a), elevated apolipoprotein B, and the dyslipidemia of the metabolic syndrome pose an increased in CHD risk in some patients, the risk reduction with lipid-lowering therapy has not been fully investigated. The CHD risk of isolated hypertriglyceridemia remains uncertain. Very high triglyceride levels, however, should be treated to prevent pancreatitis. A lipid-lowering diet and other appropriate lifestyle changes constitute safe advice for all patients with dyslipidemia. In initiating pharmacologic therapy, physicians should view potential risk reduction in the context of a patient's overall CHD risk. The selection of particular medications can be individualized, considering effectiveness evidence from clinical trials, lipid-lowering potency, adverse effects, drug interactions, costs, and patient preferences.     

A guideline-driven assessment of need for cardiovascular disease risk intervention in persons with chronic paraplegia

OBJECTIVE: To examine percentages of persons with chronic paraplegia who qualify for lipid-lowering therapeutic lifestyle intervention (TLI) as assessed by authoritative guidelines. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-one subjects (mean age +/- standard deviation, 34+/-11 y) with motor-complete paraplegia (American Spinal Injury Association grade A or B) at T6-L1 levels for greater than 2 years. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentages of subjects qualifying for TLI were independently assessed and then compared using National Cholesterol Education Project Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) II (1994) and ATP III (2002) Guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 34.1% of subjects qualified for intervention based on the ATP II Guidelines and 63.4% based on ATP III (chi1(2) test=4.53; 2-tailed, P=.003). Seventy-six percent (31/41) of study participants had high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels below the high-risk criterion of 40 mg/dL established by ATP III. Almost one third of subjects had hypertension, and 34.1% satisfied criteria for diagnosis of the metabolic syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: A high percentage of young, apparently healthy people with chronic paraplegia are at risk for cardiovascular disease and qualify for lipid-lowering TLI. Updated guidelines of the ATP III have increased the urgency for early risk assessment and intervention.     

Achievement of English National Service Framework lipid-lowering goals: pooled data from recent comparative treatment trials of statins at starting doses

Despite the importance of reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, detailed in guidelines in many countries, repeated surveys show poor physician performance in attaining guideline lipid targets, which is associated with reluctance by physicians to up-titrate statins from starting doses. Data from randomised, double-blind trials comparing common starting doses of atorvastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin and simvastatin for 12 weeks in hypercholesterolaemic patients were therefore analysed for achievement of lipid-lowering goals recommended by the England National Service Framework (NSF) for coronary heart disease (CHD). In three pooled trials, rosuvastatin 10 mg (n = 389) reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and total cholesterol more significantly than atorvastatin 10 mg (n = 393) (p < 0.001). NSF goals were achieved by 83% of rosuvastatin patients vs. 55% of atorvastatin patients (p < 0.001) at relevant starting doses. In two pooled trials, rosuvastatin 10 mg (n = 226) reduced LDL-C and total cholesterol more significantly than simvastatin 20 mg (n = 249) and pravastatin 20 mg (n = 252) (p < 0.001). NSF goals were achieved at starting doses by 83% of rosuvastatin patients vs. 51% of simvastatin patients and 19% of pravastatin patients (p < 0.001 vs. each comparator). This improved achievement of NSF lipid target, at starting doses, was also seen in high-risk patients (those eligible for secondary prevention or primary prevention because of a 10-year CVD risk of >30%) with 84% patients on rosuvastatin vs. 58% on atorvastatin and 75% of patients on rosuvastatin vs. 49% on simvaststin and 24% on pravastatin. In summary, there are considerable and clinically significant variations in the achievement of lipid goals between common starting doses of statins in hypercholesterolaemic patients.     

The care gap: underuse of statin therapy in the elderly

Atherosclerotic diseases are responsible for the majority of deaths in the elderly, and they can also increase the risk of disability. Statins are first-line therapies for lowering lipid levels and have been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in large-scale clinical trials. There is a growing body of evidence that statins are as efficacious at lowering lipid levels and reducing the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) in elderly patients as in younger individuals. Furthermore, as this population is at a greater absolute risk of CHD, they may receive greater absolute benefits from treatment. However, despite these benefits, many elderly individuals at risk of CHD and stroke are not receiving adequate lipid-lowering therapy, which could help them to maintain their health and independence. Further, prospective randomised trials are required to guide physicians in the treatment of elderly patients at risk of atherosclerotic disease, thereby resolving the current undertreatment.     

Impact of Switching Treatment From Rosuvastatin to Atorvastatin on Rates of Cardiovascular Events

Background

Now that generic atorvastatin has become available, a process of switching from rosuvastatin to atorvastatin may occur and could persist until the patent on branded rosuvastatin expires. It is important to understand the impact that such therapy may have on patients’ cardiovascular (CV) health.

Objectives

This simulated study estimates the impact of switching patients treated with rosuvastatin to atorvastatin on rates of CV events over a 5-year period.

Methods

A study of 50,038 virtual dyslipidemic patients aged 45 to 70 years was conducted using the Archimedes model. Virtual patients were created based on the profiles of patients in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Statin treatment models were constructed based on data from published studies, including STELLAR, JUPITER, CARDS, ASCOT, and TNT. Patients were started on a dose of rosuvastatin based on their ATP III low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal and the distributions of statin use observed in US pharmacy claims data. Patients were monitored for 5 years, during which time they received regular visits with the opportunity to increase their dosage if they were above their LDL-C goal. In the experimental arm, patients were switched from rosuvastatin to atorvastatin at the first clinic visit 6 weeks after initiating rosuvastatin (using an atorvastatin dose twice the rosuvastatin milligram-dose). No switching occurred in the control arm, and patients were titrated as necessary per ATP III cholesterol management guidelines. The rate of first occurrence of a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; myocardial infarction, stroke, and/or cardiovascular-related death) over the 5-year period was estimated for each study arm.

Results

After 5 years, in the atorvastatin-switched arm compared with continuing rosuvastatin, 4.8% fewer patients reached goal (87% vs 91%, respectively). The 5-year relative risk for MACE with switching was 1.109 (95% CI, 1.092–1.127), and the number needed to harm (NNH) to incur 1 additional MACE over 5 years was 262, favoring treatment with rosuvastatin. In diabetic individuals who were switched to atorvastatin, the 5-year relative risk for MACE was 1.121 (95% CI, 1.091–1.151), and the NNH over 5 years was 195, indicating greater risk in diabetic individuals. The results were insensitive to adherence rates and LDL-C goal values.

Conclusions

This study found that switching from rosuvastatin to atorvastatin led to fewer patients attaining LDL-C goal and a greater risk for MACE.     

A review of the efficacy of rosuvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes

It has been estimated that 92% of individuals with type 2 diabetes, without cardiovascular disease (CVD), have a dyslipidaemic profile. Several guidelines on cardiovascular risk now recommend that patients with diabetes should be considered at high risk of CVD and should thus receive lipid-lowering therapy to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) to below 2.5 mmol/L. Since their introduction in 1987, statins have revolutionized the management of CVD. The most recent statin to be introduced, rosuvastatin, has been shown to be the most effective at lowering LDL-C, as well as consistently raising HDL-C across the 10-40 mg dose range. This has been confirmed by many studies, including the Measuring Effective Reductions in Cholesterol Using Rosuvastatin Therapy (MERCURY I) study in which rosuvastatin 10 mg was shown to be more effective than commonly used doses of other statins, both for LDL-C reduction and achieving treatment target goals. The effectiveness of rosuvastatin has also been studied in type 2 diabetes patients in three studies: the URANUS (Use of Rosuvastatin vs. Atorvastatin iN type 2 diabetes mellitUS), ANDROMEDA (A raNdomized, Double-blind study to compare Rosuvastatin [10 & 20 mg] and atOrvastatin [10 & 20 Mg] in patiEnts with type II DiAbetes) and CORALL (COmpare Rosuvastatin [10-40 mg] with Atorvastatin [20-80 mg] on apo B/apo A-1 ratio in patients with type 2 diabetes meLLitus and dyslipidaemia) studies. URANUS and ANDROMEDA showed rosuvastatin to be more effective than atorvastatin at reducing LDL-C and achieving treatment target goals. CORALL demonstrated rosuvastatin 10, 20 and 40 mg to be more effective at lowering LDL-C than 20, 40 and 80 mg of atorvastatin, respectively. Ongoing studies will evaluate whether these properties of rosuvastatin translate into beneficial effects on atherosclerosis and significant reductions in cardiovascular events.     

Treatment of high-risk older persons with lipid-lowering drug therapy

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies and observational studies have demonstrated that statins reduce mortality and major cardiovascular events in high-risk persons with hypercholesterolemia. The aim of this study was to review the evidence for treating high-risk older persons with lipid-lowering drugs. A MEDLINE search of the English-language literature published from January 1, 1989, to June 2006 was conducted to review all studies in which lipid-lowering drug therapy was administered to high-risk older persons. The Heart Protection Study showed that statins reduced mortality and major cardiovascular events in high-risk persons, regardless of the initial level of serum lipids, age, or gender. The updated National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) III guidelines state that in very-high-risk patients, a serum low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level of <70 mg/dL is a reasonable clinical strategy, regardless of age. When a high-risk person has hypertriglyceridemia or low serum high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, consideration can be given to combining a fibrate or nicotinic acid with an LDL cholesterol-lowering drug. For moderately-high-risk persons, the serum LDL cholesterol should be reduced to <100 mg/dL. When LDL cholesterol-lowering drug therapy is used for high-risk persons or moderately-high-risk persons, the serum LDL cholesterol should be reduced at least 30% to 40%. High-risk older persons should be treated with lipid-lowering drugs according to the NCEP III updated guidelines to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.     

Hypothetical economic analysis of screening for left ventricular hypertrophy in high-risk normotensive populations

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) measured by echocardiography is a powerful independent marker of increased cardiovascular risk. The prevalence of echocardiographic LVH in patients with high cardiovascular risk appears to be high, even in patients currently considered normotensive. AIM: To ascertain the likely costs of screening for and treating echocardiographic LVH in normotensive patients at high risk of cardiovascular events. DESIGN: Hypothetical economic analysis. METHODS: Cost analyses were based on known costs of echocardiography, costs of selected cardiovascular medications and prevalence of normotensive LVH in at-risk populations, combined with treatment effect data from studies of hypertensive patients with echocardiographic LVH. RESULTS: Screening costs per case for echocardiographic LVH are likely to be low, because of the high prevalence of the condition and the low unit cost of echocardiography. Treatment costs are likely to be comparable to those currently deemed acceptable in treating high-risk cardiovascular populations, e.g. the HOPE study population. DISCUSSION: The costs of screening for and treating LVH in normotensive patients at risk of cardiovascular events do not appear to be prohibitively high. Trials of screening and treatment for normotensive LVH seem therefore to be warranted.     

Pain Conditions Ranked by Healthcare Costs for Members of a National Health Plan

Healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and associated costs specific to pain are a growing concern, as increasing dollar amounts are spent on pain‐related conditions. Understanding which pain conditions drive the highest utilization and cost burden to the healthcare system would enable providers and payers to better target conditions to manage pain adequately and efficiently. The current study focused on 36 noncancer chronic and 14 noncancer acute pain conditions and measured the HCRU and costs per member over 365 days. These conditions were ranked by per‐member costs and total adjusted healthcare costs to determine the most expensive conditions to a national health plan. The top 5 conditions for the commercial line of business were back pain, osteoarthritis (OA), childbirth, injuries, and non‐hip, non‐spine fractures (adjusted annual total costs for the commercial members were $119 million, $98 million, $69 million, $61 million, and $48 million, respectively). The top 5 conditions for Medicare members were OA, back pain, hip fractures, injuries, and non‐hip, non‐spine fractures (adjusted annual costs for the Medicare members were $327 million, $218 million, $117 million, $82 million, and $67 million, respectively). The conditions ranked highest for both per‐member and total healthcare costs were hip fractures, childbirth, and non‐hip, non‐spine fractures. Among these, hip fractures in the Medicare member population had the highest mean cost per member (adjusted per‐member cost was $21,058). Further examination specific to how pain is managed in these high‐cost conditions will enable providers and payers to develop strategies to improve patient outcomes through appropriate pain management.     

Multicomponent targeted intervention to prevent delirium in hospitalized older patients: what is the economic value?

INTRODUCTION: Delirium, or acute confusional state, is a common and serious occurrence among hospitalized older persons. Current estimates suggest that delirium complicates hospital stays for more than 2.3 million older persons each year, involving more than 17.5 million hospital days and accounting for more than $4 billion (1994 dollars) of Medicare expenditures. A 40% reduction was recently reported in the risk for delirium among hospitalized older persons receiving a multicomponent targeted risk factor intervention (MTI) strategy to prevent delirium, compared with subjects receiving usual hospital care.1 Before recommending that this preventive strategy be implemented in clinical practice, however, the cost implications must be thoroughly examined as well. METHODS: The present analysis performs net cost evaluations of the MTI for the prevention of delirium among hospitalized patients. Hospital charge and cost-to-charge ratio data are linked to a database of 852 subjects, who were treated with MTI or usual care. Multivariable regression methods were used to help isolate the impact of MTI on hospital costs. These results were then combined with our earlier work on the impact of the MTI on delirium prevention to assess the cost effectiveness of this intervention. RESULTS: The MTI significantly reduced nonintervention costs among subjects at intermediate risk for developing delirium, but not among subjects at high risk. When MTI intervention costs were included, MTI had no significant effect on overall health care costs in the intermediate risk cohort, but raised overall costs in the high risk group. CONCLUSIONS: Because the MTI prevented delirium in the intermediate risk group without raising costs, the conclusion reached is that it is a cost effective treatment option for patients at intermediate risk for developing delirium. In contrast, the results suggest that the MTI is not cost effective for subjects at high risk.     

Successful control of dyslipidemia in patients with metabolic syndrome: focus on lifestyle changes

Approaches to controlling dyslipidemia in patients with metabolic syndrome must take into consideration a patient's individual characteristics and underlying lipid disorder. Some patients will require pharmacologic therapy, whereas others can be controlled with lifestyle changes alone. The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) guidelines recommend that patients with at least 3 of the following clinical variables be designated as having metabolic syndrome: abdominal obesity as reflected in increased waist circumference; a low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) level; an elevated triglyceride level; elevated blood pressure or treatment with antihypertensive medications; and/or elevated fasting plasma glucose or treatment with antidiabetic medications. Unless patients with metabolic syndrome change their lifestyle, existing cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors will worsen or new risk factors will develop. This helps explain why these patients are at increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and coronary heart disease (CHD). The lifestyle changes recommended by NCEP ATP III for controlling dyslipidemia (i.e., elevated levels of triglycerides and decreased levels of HDL-C) in patients with metabolic syndrome or type 2 DM include (1) reduced intake of saturated fats and dietary cholesterol, (2) intake of dietary options to enhance lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, (3) weight control, and (4) increased physical activity. If lifestyle changes are not successful for individuals at high risk of developing CHD, or for those who currently have CHD, a CHD risk equivalent, or persistent atherogenic dyslipidemia, then pharmacotherapy may be necessary as defined by NCEP ATP III guidelines.     

Estimates of direct medical costs for microvascular and macrovascular complications resulting from type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United States in 2000

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is a chronic condition that affects the health of Americans and the US health care system on many levels. According to the American Diabetes Association, approximately 16 million Americans have diabetes mellitus. The onset of type 2 diabetes mellitus, which accounts for the vast majority (90%-95%) of cases, precedes diagnosis by a mean 7 years, with the disease typically manifesting during adulthood. It is not uncommon for people to first realize they have diabetes mellitus due to the appearance of a related complication. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this analysis was to estimate the direct medical costs of managing microvascular and macrovascular complications of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United States in the year 2000. METHODS: Complication costs were estimated by applying unit costs to typical resource-use profiles. A combination of direct data analysis and cost modeling was used. For each complication, the event costs referred to those associated with the acute episode and subsequent care in the first year. State costs were the annual costs of continued management. Data were obtained from many sources, including inpatient, ambulatory, and emergency department care databases from several states; national physician and laboratory fee schedules; government reports; and literature. All costs were expressed in 2000 US dollars. RESULTS: Major events (eg, acute myocardial infarction--30,364 dollars event cost, 1678 dollars state cost) generated a greater financial burden than early-stage complica- tions (eg, microalbuminuria--63 dollars event cost, 15 dollars state cost). However, complications that were initially relatively low in cost (eg, microalbuminuria) can progress to more costly advanced stages (eg, end-stage renal disease--37,022 dollars state cost). CONCLUSIONS: Given the scope of diabetes mellitus in the United States and its impact on health care and budgets, it is important for policy makers to have up-to-date information about treatment outcomes and costs. The costs presented here provide essential components for any analysis examining the economic burden of the complications of diabetes mellitus.