Cost-effectiveness of single-pill and separate-pill administration of antihypertensive triple combination therapy: a population-based microsimulation study

Abstract

Background: Single-pill combination (SPC) of three antihypertensive drugs has been shown to improve adherence to therapy compared with free combinations, but little is known about its long-term costs and health consequences. This study aimed to evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness profile of a three-drug SPC of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, a calcium-channel blocker, and a diuretic vs the corresponding two-pill administration (a two-drug SPC plus a third drug separately) from the Italian payer perspective.

Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using multi-state semi-Markov modeling and microsimulation. Using the healthcare utilization database of the Lombardy Region (Italy), 30,172 and 65,817 patients aged ≥ 40 years who initiated SPC and two-pill combination, respectively, between 2015 and 2018 were identified. The observation period extended from the date of the first drug dispensation until death, emigration, or December 31, 2019. Disease and cost models were parametrized using the study cohort, and a lifetime microsimulation was applied to project costs and life expectancy for the compared strategies, assigning each of them to each cohort member. Costs and life-years gained were discounted by 3%. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis with 1,000 samples was performed to address parameter uncertainty.

Results: Compared with the two-pill combination, the SPC increased life expectancy by 0.86 years (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-1.14), with a mean cost differential of -€12 (95% CI -9,719-8,131), making it the dominant strategy (ICER = -14, 95% CI -€15,871-€7,113). The cost reduction associated with the SPC was primarily driven by savings in hospitalization costs, amounting to €1,850 (95% CI 17-7,813) and €2,027 (95% CI 19-8,603) for patients treated with the SPC and two-pill combination, respectively. Conversely, drug costs were higher for the SPC (€3,848, 95% CI 574-10,640 vs. €3,710, 95% CI 263-11,955). The cost-effectiveness profile did not significantly change according to age, sex, and clinical status.

Conclusions: The SPC was projected to be cost-effective compared with the two-pill combination at almost all reasonable willingness-to-pay thresholds. As it is currently prescribed to only a few patients, the widespread use of this strategy could result in benefits for both patients and the healthcare system.

Keywords: Cost-effectiveness; Healthcare utilization database; Hypertension; Microsimulation; Real world; Single-pill combination.

Fig. 1

The three-state model of disease progression. $h_{\mathit{rs}}\left(t\right)$ represents the hazard for transitioning from the state r to the state s at time t

Fig. 2

Cost-effectiveness plane. The plot demonstrates both the uncertainty and magnitude of the estimates. Each point on the plot is from a particular random draw from the PSA. Red triangle represents the mean ICER across the PSA samples. The dotted line is the reference WTP threshold (€23,000). Abbreviations: ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; PSA, probabilistic sensitivity analysis; SPC, single-pill combination; WTP, willingness-to-pay