Cost-effectiveness of Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Level–Guided Statin Treatment in Patients With Borderline Cardiovascular Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines prioritize primary prevention statin therapy based on 10-year absolute risk (AR10) of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, given the same AR10, patients with higher levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) experience greater absolute risk reduction from statin therapy. Objectives: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of expanding preventive statin treatment eligibility from standard care to patients at borderline risk (AR10, 5.0%-7.4%) for ASCVD and with high levels of LDL-C and to estimate cost-effectiveness of statin treatment across ranges of age, sex, AR10, and LDL-C levels. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study evaluated 100 simulated cohorts, each including 1 million ASCVD-free survey respondents (50% men and 50% women) aged 40 years at baseline. Cohorts were created by probabilistic sampling of the 1999-2014 US National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from the perspective of the US health care sector. The CVD Policy Model microsimulation version projected lifetime health and cost outcomes. Probability of first-ever coronary heart disease or stroke event was estimated by analysis of 6 pooled US cohort studies and recalibrated to match contemporary event rates. Other model variables were derived from national surveys, meta-analyses, and published literature. Data were analyzed from May 15, 2018, through June 10, 2019. Exposures: Four statin treatment strategies were compared: (1) treat all patients with AR10 of at least 7.5%, diabetes, or LDL-C of at least 190 mg/dL (standard care); (2) add treatment for borderline risk and LDL-C levels of 160 to 189 mg/dL; (3) add treatment for borderline risk and LDL-C levels of 130 to 159 mg/dL; and (4) add treatment for remainder of patients with AR10 of at least 5.0%. Statin treatment was also compared with no statin treatment in age, sex, AR10, and LDL-C strata. Main Outcomes and Measures: Lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs (2019 US dollars) were projected and discounted 3.0% annually. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results: In these 100 simulated cohorts, each with 1 million patients aged 40 years at baseline (50% women and 50% men), adding preventive statins to individuals with borderline AR10 and LDL-C levels of 160 to 189 mg/dL would be cost-saving; further treating borderline AR10 and LDL-C levels of 130 to 159 mg/dL would also be cost-saving; and treating all individuals with AR10 of at least 5.0% would be highly cost-effective ($33 558/QALY) and would prevent the most ASCVD events. Within age, AR10, and sex categories, individuals with higher baseline LDL-C levels gained more QALYs from statin therapy. Cost-effectiveness increased with LDL-C level and AR10. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, lifetime statin treatment of patients in a hypothetical cohort with borderline ASCVD risk and LDL-C levels of 160 to 189 mg/dL was found to be cost-saving. Results suggest that treating all patients at borderline risk regardless of LDL-C level would likely be highly cost-effective.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".