Aims

To assess the cost-effectiveness of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibition with evolocumab added to standard-of-care lipid-lowering treatment [maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of statin and ezetimibe] in Swedish patients with a history of myocardial infarction (MI).

Methods and results

Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using a Markov model based on Swedish observational data on cardiovascular event rates and efficacy from the FOURIER trial. Three risk profiles were considered: recent MI in the previous year; history of MI with a risk factor; and history of MI with a second event within 2 years. For each population, three minimum baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels were considered: 2.5 mmol/L (≈100 mg/dL), based on the current reimbursement recommendation in Sweden; 1.8 mmol/L (≈70 mg/dL), based on 2016 ESC/EAS guidelines; and 1.4 mmol/L (≈55 mg/dL), or 1.0 mmol/L (≈40 mg/dL) for MI with a second event, based on 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibition with evolocumab was associated with increased quality-adjusted life-years and costs vs. standard-of-care therapy. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were below SEK700 000 (∼€66 500), the generally accepted willingness-to-pay threshold in Sweden, for minimum LDL-C levels of 2.3 (recent MI), 1.7 (MI with a risk factor), and 1.7 mmol/L (MI with a second event). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that base-case results were robust to changes in model parameters.

Conclusion

Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibition with evolocumab added to MTD of statin and ezetimibe may be considered cost-effective at its list price for minimum LDL-C levels of 1.7-2.3 mmol/L, depending on risk profile, with ICERs below the accepted willingness-to-pay threshold in Sweden.

We present a detailed response to the critique of "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012" (UNEP/WHO, 2013) by financial stakeholders, authored by Lamb et al. (2014). Lamb et al.'s claim that UNEP/WHO (2013) does not provide a balanced perspective on endocrine disruption is based on incomplete and misleading quoting of the report through omission of qualifying statements and inaccurate description of study objectives, results and conclusions. Lamb et al. define extremely narrow standards for synthesizing evidence which are then used to dismiss the UNEP/WHO 2013 report as flawed. We show that Lamb et al. misuse conceptual frameworks for assessing causality, especially the Bradford-Hill criteria, by ignoring the fundamental problems that exist with inferring causality from empirical observations. We conclude that Lamb et al.'s attempt of deconstructing the UNEP/WHO (2013) report is not particularly erudite and that their critique is not intended to be convincing to the scientific community, but to confuse the scientific data. Consequently, it promotes misinterpretation of the UNEP/WHO (2013) report by non-specialists, bureaucrats, politicians and other decision makers not intimately familiar with the topic of endocrine disruption and therefore susceptible to false generalizations of bias and subjectivity.

Abstract The “common sense” intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU.

The common sense intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU.