Differences in utility elicitation methods in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review

<p><b>Aims:</b> Utility values inform estimates of the cost-effectiveness of treatment for cardiovascular disease (CVD), but values can vary depending on the method used. The aim of this systematic literature review (SLR) was to explore how methods of elicitation impact utility values for CVD.</p> <p><b>Materials and methods:</b> This review identified English-language articles in Embase, MEDLINE, and the gray literature published between September 1992 and August 2015 using keywords for “utilities” and “stroke”, “heart failure”, “myocardial infarction”, or “angina”. Variability in utility values based on the method of elicitation, tariff, or type of respondent was then reported.</p> <p><b>Results:</b> This review screened 4,341 citations; 290 of these articles qualified for inclusion in the SLR because they reported utility values for one or more of the cardiovascular conditions of interest listed above. Of these 290, the 41 articles that provided head-to-head comparisons of utility methods for CVD were reviewed. In this sub-set, it was found that methodological differences contributed to variation in utility values. Direct methods often yielded higher scores than did indirect methods. Within direct methods, there were no clear trends in head-to-head studies (standard gamble [SG] vs time trade-off); but general population respondents often provided lower scores than did patients with the disease when evaluating the same health states with SG methods. When comparing indirect methods, the EQ-5D typically yielded higher values than the SF-6D, but also showed more sensitivity to differences in health states.</p> <p><b>Conclusions:</b> When selecting CVD utility values for an economic model, consideration of the utility elicitation method is important, as this review demonstrates that methodology of choice impacts utility values in CVD.</p

A systematic review to assess adherence and persistence with statins

<p><b>Objective:</b> To identify and assess studies published over a 10 year period up to February 2016 which measure adherence or persistence with statins, to summarize their methods, strengths and weaknesses and to summarize evidence linking statin adherence/persistence with risk of cardiovascular events.</p> <p><b>Methods:</b> Electronic databases and abstracts from four major cardiovascular disease conferences were searched from January 2005 to February 2016. The study selection process was performed by two reviewers working independently. Studies were included if they reported data regarding patient adherence or persistence with statins in adults with primary hypercholesterolemia, using any type of study design or length of follow-up. One reviewer extracted the study data and assessed study quality, which was checked by a second reviewer independently. Given the heterogeneity between the included studies a narrative critique and summary is presented.</p> <p><b>Results:</b> We report on 84 real world studies which aimed to assess adherence or persistence with statins. The majority of studies concluded that good adherence/persistence was associated with reduction in cardiovascular events and mortality. In two studies high intensity statin regimens were associated with poorer patient adherence when compared to low intensity statins. Adherence and persistence with statin therapy also has an impact on hospitalization costs and other cardiovascular disease (CVD) related costs.</p> <p><b>Conclusions:</b> Adherence and persistence are associated with a reduction in CVD events and mortality. There was limited evidence to suggest that high intensity statin regimens are associated with poorer treatment adherence when compared to lower intensity regimens. Hence, more robust studies are required to establish this association. As recommended by the 2013 ACC/AHA, 2016 ESC and several other clinical guidelines, clinicians and pharmacy managers should regularly monitor statin therapy adherence.</p