Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40411656›Full record

ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2025

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.

Alfredo Mariani, Syed Mohiuddin, Patrick Muller, Eleanor Samarasekera, Sharon A Swain, Joseph Mills, Riyaz Patel, David Preiss, Eduard Shantsila, Beatrice C Downing and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Alfredo MarianiScience, Evidence and Analytics Directorate, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2 Redman Place (2nd Floor), London, E20 1JQ, UK. alfredo.mariani@nice.org.uk.ORCID 0009-0006-6405-304X
Syed MohiuddinScience, Evidence and Analytics Directorate, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2 Redman Place (2nd Floor), London, E20 1JQ, UK.
Patrick MullerScience, Evidence and Analytics Directorate, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2 Redman Place (2nd Floor), London, E20 1JQ, UK.
Eleanor SamarasekeraCentre for Guidelines, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, UK.
Sharon A SwainCentre for Guidelines, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, UK.
Joseph MillsLiverpool Heart and Chest Hospital, Liverpool, UK.
Riyaz PatelBarts Health NHS Trust, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
David PreissNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Eduard ShantsilaInstitute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Beatrice C DowningPopulation Health Science, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Michael LonerganClinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), Safety and Surveillance Group, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, London, UK.
Shaun RowarkScience, Evidence and Analytics Directorate, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2 Redman Place (2nd Floor), London, E20 1JQ, UK.
Nicky J WeltonPopulation Health Science, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Rachael WilliamsClinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), Safety and Surveillance Group, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, London, UK.
David WonderlingScience, Evidence and Analytics Directorate, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2 Redman Place (2nd Floor), London, E20 1JQ, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite 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.

objectiveThis 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.

methodsA 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.

resultsData 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).

conclusionsThe 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.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsSecondary PreventionAgedCholesterol, LDLCost-Benefit AnalysisEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMarkov ChainsMiddle AgedQuality-Adjusted Life YearsCholesterol, LDLHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID40411656
PMCPMC12364731

What Socratic holds

Texttitle and abstract
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.