IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v23y2025i5d10.1007_s40258-025-00977-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using a Markov Model and Real-World Evidence to Identify the Most Cost-Effective Cholesterol Treatment Escalation Threshold for the Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease

Author

Listed:
  • Alfredo Mariani

    (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence)

  • Syed Mohiuddin

    (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence)

  • Patrick Muller

    (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence)

  • Eleanor Samarasekera

    (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence)

  • Sharon A. Swain

    (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence)

  • Joseph Mills

    (Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital)

  • Riyaz Patel

    (Barts Health NHS Trust, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust)

  • David Preiss

    (University of Oxford)

  • Eduard Shantsila

    (University of Liverpool)

  • Beatrice C. Downing

    (University of Bristol)

  • Michael Lonergan

    (Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency)

  • Shaun Rowark

    (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence)

  • Nicky J. Welton

    (University of Bristol)

  • Rachael Williams

    (Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency)

  • David Wonderling

    (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence)

Abstract

Background Despite the decreased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) with statins, there remains an unfulfilled clinical need to prevent CVD events and premature mortality through further cholesterol-modifying interventions. In people with established CVD taking a statin, lipid therapy escalation to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) or non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) levels may lower the risk of CVD hospital admissions and improve survival. However, the cost-effectiveness of different cholesterol treatment escalation thresholds is uncertain. Objective This study aimed to identify the most cost-effective cholesterol threshold for escalating lipid therapy in people with established CVD who are taking a statin, to support the 2023 update of the NICE guideline on CVD in England. Methods A cohort Markov model with a yearly cycle length was developed to compare the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of various LDL-C treatment escalation thresholds (0–4.0 mmol/L), using a combination of treatment effects from an original network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), real-world data for estimating baseline cholesterol levels and CVD event rates from a published meta-analysis of statin RCTs. The model used the following CVD events: ischaemic stroke; transient ischaemic attack; peripheral artery disease; myocardial infarction; unstable angina; coronary revascularisation; and mortality. The model also used evidence-based estimates of resource use and costs, and published quality of life data. Baseline LDL-C levels and CVD hospital admission rates were estimated through a bespoke analysis of the English primary care data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), linked to Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care (HES) and Office for National Statistics (ONS) death registrations. Results Data from 590,917 adult individuals (61.7% men) with CVD on a statin in primary care between 1 January 2013 and 28 February 2020 were included in the CPRD-HES-ONS analysis. The most cost-effective threshold for lipid therapy escalation was an LDL-C of 2.2 mmol/L (or equivalent non-HDL-C of 2.9 mmol/L) at NICE’s lower cost per QALY of £20,000. An LDL-C of 2.0 mmol/L (or equivalent non-HDL-C of 2.6 mmol/L) was the most cost-effective treatment escalation threshold in a significant proportion (38%) of probabilistic simulations and produced more health. At this threshold, the model predicted that 42% of people with CVD would require combination therapy with ezetimibe while 19% would require an injectable drug such as inclisiran. At NICE’s upper cost per QALY of £30,000, the most cost-effective LDL-C treatment escalation threshold was 1.7 mmol/L (or equivalent non-HDL-C of 2.2 mmol/L). Conclusions The results demonstrate the importance of establishing evidence of cost-effectiveness for cholesterol treatment escalation thresholds. The study’s findings support the updated NICE guideline recommending a threshold of 2.0 mmol/L LDL-C (or equivalent non-HDL-C of 2.6 mmol/L) for secondary prevention of CVD.

Suggested Citation

  • Alfredo Mariani & Syed Mohiuddin & Patrick Muller & Eleanor Samarasekera & Sharon A. Swain & Joseph Mills & Riyaz Patel & David Preiss & Eduard Shantsila & Beatrice C. Downing & Michael Lonergan & Sha, 2025. "Using a Markov Model and Real-World Evidence to Identify the Most Cost-Effective Cholesterol Treatment Escalation Threshold for the Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 869-883, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-025-00977-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-025-00977-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-025-00977-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-025-00977-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-025-00977-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.