Modeling the Cost Effectiveness and Budgetary Impact of Polypills for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in the United States

Background: There is underutilization of appropriate medications for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Methods: Usual care (UC) was compared to polypill-based care with 3 versions using a validated micro-simulation model in the NHANES population with prior CVD. UC included individual prescription of up to 4 drug classes (antiplatelet agents, beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitors and statins). The polypills modeled were aspirin 81 mg, atenolol 50 mg, ramipril 5 mg, and either simvastatin 40 mg (Polypill I), atorvastatin 80 mg (Polypill II), or rosuvastatin 40 mg (Polypill III). Baseline medication use and adherence came from United Healthcare claims data.

Results: When compared to UC, there were annual reductions of 130,000 to 178,000 myocardial infarctions and 54,000 to 74,000 strokes using Polypill I and II, respectively. From a health sector perspective, in incremental analysis the ICERs for Polypill I and II were $20,073/QALY and $21,818/QALY respectively; Polypill III was dominated but had a similar cost-effectiveness ratio to Polypill II when compared directly to usual care. From a societal perspective, Polypill II was cost-saving and dominated all strategies. Over a 5-year period, those taking Polypill I and II compared to UC saved approximately $12 and $6 per-patient-per-year alive, respectively. Polypill II was the preferred strategy in 98% of runs at a willingness to pay of $50,000 in the probability sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions: Use of a polypill has a favorable cost profile for secondary CVD prevention in the United States. Reductions in CVD-related healthcare costs outweighed medication cost increases on a per-patient-per-year basis, suggesting that a polypill would be economically advantageous to both patients and payers.