Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 279–289 | Cite as

Simvastatin After Orthotopic Heart Transplantation

Costs and Consequences
  • Karl J. Krobot
  • Klaus Wenke
  • Bruno Reichart
Original Research Article Simvastatin After Heart Transplantation

Abstract

Objective: Recent data indicate that the combination of a low cholesterol diet and simvastatin following heart transplantation is associated with significant reduction of serum cholesterol levels, lower incidence of graft vessel disease (GVD) and significantly superior 4-year survival rates than dietary treatment alone. On the basis of this first randomised long term study evaluating survival as the clinical end-point, we investigated the cost effectiveness of the above regimens as well as the long term consequences for the patient and for heart transplantation as a high-tech procedure.

Design and setting: The perspective of the economic analysis was that of the German health insurance fund. Life-years gained were calculated on the basis of the Kaplan-Meier survival curves from the 4-year clinical trial and from the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) overall survival statistics. Incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were determined using various sources of data, and both costs and consequences were discounted by 3% per year. Sensitivity analyses using alternative assumptions were conducted in addition to the base-case analysis.

Patients and participants: As in the original clinical trial, the target population of the economic evaluation comprised all heart transplant recipients on standard triple immunosuppression consisting of cyclosporin, azathioprine and prednisolone, regardless of the postoperative serum lipid profile.

Interventions: The therapeutic regimens investigated in the analysis were the American Heart Association (AHA) step II diet plus simvastatin (titrated to a maximum dosage of 20 mg/day) and AHA step II diet alone.

Main outcome measures and results: Four years of treatment with simvastatin (mean dosage 8.11 mg/day) translated into an undiscounted survival benefit per patient of 2.27 life-years; 0.64 life-years within the trial period and 1.63 life-years thereafter. Discounted costs per year of life gained were $US1050 (sensitivity analyses $US800 to $US15 400) for simvastatin plus diet versus diet alone and $US18 010 (sensitivity analyses $US17 130 to $US21 090) for heart transplantation plus simvastatin versus no transplantation (all costs reflect 1997 values; $US1 = 1.747 Deutschmarks).

Conclusions: Prevention of GVD with simvastatin after heart transplantation was cost effective in all the scenarios examined with impressive prolongation of life expectancy for the heart recipient. Simvastatin also achieved an internationally robust 21% improvement in the cost effectiveness of heart transplantation compared with historical cost-effectiveness data.

Keywords

Adis International Limited Simvastatin Heart Transplantation Orthotopic Heart Transplantation Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    ISHLT 14th Annual Data Report. Available from: URL: (http://www.richmond.infi.net/~ishlt/ishlt_97/cause.html#heart_lung) [accessed 1997 Jul 8]
  2. 2.
    Eich D, Thompson JA, Ko DJ, et al. Hypercholesterolemia in long-term survivors of heart transplantation: an early marker of accelerated coronary artery disease. J Heart Lung Transplant 1991; 10: 45–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sharples LD, Caine N, Mullins P, et al. Risk factor analysis for the major hazards following heart transplantation: rejection, infection, and coronary occlusive disease. Transplantation 1991; 52: 244–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ballantyne CM, Radovancevic B, Farmer JA, et al. Hyperlipidemia after heart transplantation: report of a 6-year experience, with treatment recommendations. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992; 19 (6): 1315–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schröder JS, Gao SZ, Alderman EL, et al. A preliminary study of diltiazem in the prevention of coronary artery disease in heart-transplant recipients. N Engl J Med 1993; 328 (3): 164–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hidalgo L, Zambrana JL, Blanco-Molina A, et al. Lovastatin versus bezafibrate for hyperlipemia treatment after heart transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 1995; 14 (3): 461–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barbir M, Hunt B, Kushwaha S, et al. Maxepa versus bezafibrate in hyperlipidemic cardiac transplant recipients. Am J Cardiol 1992; 70: 1596–601PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kobashigawa JA, Katznelson S, Laks H, et al. Effects of pravastatin on outcomes after cardiac transplantation. N Engl J Med 1995; 33: 621–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wenke K, Meiser B, Thiery J, et al. Simvastatin reduces graft vessel disease and mortality after heart transplantation: a fouryear randomized trial. Circulation 1997; 96 (5): 1398–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ballantyne C, Bourge RC, Domalik LJ, et al. Treatment of hyperlipidemia after heart transplantation and rationale for the heart transplant registry. Am J Cardiol 1996; 78: 532–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Christopherson LK. Organ transplantation and artificial organs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1986; 2: 553–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Evans RW. Organ transplantation and the inevitable debate as to what constitutes a basic health care benefit. In: Terasaki PI, Cecka JM, editors. Los Angeles (CA): UCLA Tissue Typing Laboratory, 1993: 359–91Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gold MR, Russell LB, Soegel JE, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 1996Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ISHLT 14th Annual Data Report. Available from: URL: http://www.richmond.infi.net/~~ishlt/registry/survival.htm#surv_a1 [accessed 1996 Nov 21]
  15. 15.
    Rote Liste 1997. Editio Cantor Verlag für Medizin und Naturwissenschaften GmbH. Aulendorf/Württemberg: ECV, 1997Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    GOÄ und BG-GOÄ. Gebührenordnung für Ärzte (GOÄ). 8. Auflage. Dachau: Zauner Druck und Verlags GmbH, 1997Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haberman S. Heart transplants: putting a price on life. Health Soc Serv J 1982; 90: 877–9Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pennock JL, Oyer PE, Reitz BA, et al. Cardiac transplantation in perspective for the future: survival, complications, rehabilitation & cost. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1982; 83: 168–77PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISHLT 14th Annual Data Report. Available from: URL: http://www.richmond.infi.net/~ishlt/ishlt_97/surv_1.html#overall [accessed 1997 Jul 15]
  20. 20.
    Scheld HH, Deng MC, Hammel D, et al. Kosten/Nutzen-Relation der Herztransplantation. Z Kardiol 1994; 83 Suppl. 6: 139–49PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    The CONSENSUS Trial Study Group. Effects of enalapril on mortality in severe congestive heart failure: results of the cooperative north scandinavian survival study. N Engl J Med 1987; 316: 1429–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van Hout B, Bonsel G, Habbema D, et al. Heart transplantation in the Netherlands: costs, effects and scenarios. J Health Econ 1993; 12: 73–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee E. Statistical methods for survival data analysis. Belmont (CA): Wadsworth Inc., 1980: 162–7Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    1997 Drug Topics Red Book. Montvale (NJ): Medical Economics Company, Inc., 1997Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    The artificial heart: prototypes, policies, and patients. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1992: 268–9Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sharples LD, Briggs A, Caine N, et al. A model for analyzing the cost of main clinical events after cardiac transplantation. Transplantation 1996; 62 (5): 615–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ammerman AS, Devellis RF, Keyserling TC, et al. Quality of life is not adversely affected by a dietary intervention to reduce cholesterol [abstract]. Circulation 1993; 87: 19Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lawrence WF, Fryback DG, Martin PA. Cholesterol and health status in the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study [abstract]. Med Decis Making 1994; 14: 436Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zimmermann R, Haverich A. Herztransplantation [editorial]. Fortschr Kardiol 1996; 1: 22Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Anhang 1 (zu Artikel 1 Nr. 3) der Dritten Verordnung zur Änderung der Bundespflegesatzverordnung. Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl.) I, Nr 68 vom 28. Köln: Bundesanzeiger Verlagsges mbH, 1995: 2006–12Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Statistisches Bundesamt. Statistisches Jahrbuch für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt, 1997Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). UNOS OPTN/Scientific Registry data. Richmond (VA): UNOS, 1997Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hauboldt RH. Cost implications of human organ transplantations: an update. Brookfield (CT): Milliman and Robertson, Inc., 1993Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Poirier VL. The economic burden of artificial hearts: progress in artificial organs. Cleveland (OH): ISAO Press, 1986: 96–9Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Discounting health care: only a matter of timing? Lancet 1992; 340: 148–9Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Smith PE, Eydelloth RS, Grossman SJ, et al. HMG-CoA-Reductase inhibitor induced myopathy in the rat: cyclosporine interaction and mechanism studies. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1991; 257: 1225–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mauro VF. Clinical pharmacokinetics and practical applications of simvastatin. Clin Pharmacokinet 1993; 24: 195–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    The Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. Randomized trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary artery disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet 1994; 344: 1383–9Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jönsson B, Johannesson M, Kjekshus J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cholesterol lowering. Eur Heart J 1996; 17: 1001–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Malik IS, Anderson MH. Cost-efficacy of cholesterol lowering: West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study versus the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study [abstract]. Heart 1996; 75 Suppl. 1: 77Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    European Transplant Coordinators Organization (ETCO) Statistics. Available from: URL: http://www.kuleuven.ac.be [accessed 1997 Jul 8]
  42. 42.
    Shepherd J, Cobbe SM, Ford I, et al. Prevention of coronary heart disease with pravastatin in men with hypercholesterolemia. N Engl J Med 1995; 333 (20): 1301–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Institute of Medicine (IOM). National priorities for the assessment of clinical conditions and medical technologies. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karl J. Krobot
    • 1
  • Klaus Wenke
    • 2
  • Bruno Reichart
    • 3
  1. 1.Outcomes Research DepartmentMSD Sharp & Dohme GmbHHaarGermany
  2. 2.Department of Cardiac SurgeryMunich BogenhausenMunichGermany
  3. 3.Department of Cardiac SurgeryUniversity Hospital, Munich-GrosshadernMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations