Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Outcomes, Access, and Cost Issues Involving PCSK9 Inhibitors to Lower LDL-Cholesterol

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
Drugs Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The clinical importance and benefit of the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors appears well established for the high-risk cardiovascular (CV) patient. This applies especially to the statin-intolerant patient or the patient who does not attain an appropriate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) target. Therefore, the barriers to appropriate clinical use of the PCSK9 inhibitors involve cost and not the documented CV benefit or LDL-C lowering. Multiple roadblocks affect many high-risk CV patients in arranging approval of a PCSK9 inhibitor. Overcoming these roadblocks may require legal pressures, some increased regulation, and facilitation by competitive forces.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Whayne TF Jr. Is there an ideal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level? Confusion regarding lipid guidelines, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol targets, and medical management. Int J Angiol. 2017;26(2):73–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Whayne TF. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C): how low? Curr Vasc Pharmacol. 2017;15:374–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Klose G. Introduction of PCSK9 inhibitors : new perspectives in treatment and practical implementation. Herz. 2016;41(4):307–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. McDonagh M, Peterson K, Holzhammer B, Fazio S. A systematic review of PCSK9 inhibitors alirocumab and evolocumab. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2016;22(6):641–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bays H, Gaudet D, Weiss R, Ruiz JL, Watts GF, Gouni-Berthold I, et al. Alirocumab as add-on to atorvastatin versus other lipid treatment strategies: ODYSSEY OPTIONS I randomized trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(8):3140–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Ray KK, Ginsberg HN, Davidson MH, Pordy R, Bessac L, Minini P, et al. Reductions in atherogenic lipids and major cardiovascular events: a pooled analysis of 10 ODYSSEY trials comparing alirocumab with control. Circulation. 2016;134(24):1931–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Sabatine MS, Giugliano RP, Keech AC, Honarpour N, Wiviott SD, Murphy SA, et al. Evolocumab and clinical outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(18):1713–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. FDA approves Amgen’s Repatha (evolocumab) to prevent heart attack and stroke. 2017. http://www.amgen.com/media/news-releases/2017/12/fda-approves-amgens-repatha-evolocumab-to-prevent-heart-attack-and-stroke/. Accessed 18 Dec 2017.

  9. Bekkering GE, Kleijnen J. Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany. Eur J Health Econ. 2008;9(Suppl 1):5–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kreis J, Busse R. From evidence assessments to coverage decisions?: the case example of glinides in Germany. Health Policy. 2012;104(1):27–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ioannides-Demos LL, Ibrahim JE, McNeil JJ. Reference-based pricing schemes: effect on pharmaceutical expenditure, resource utilisation and health outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;20(9):577–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Breckenridge A. Development and delivery of clinical pharmacology in regulatory agencies. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;73(6):866–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Kumar B, Baldi A. The challenge of counterfeit drugs: a comprehensive review on prevalence, detection and preventive measures. Curr Drug Saf. 2016;11(2):112–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kuehn BM. Coverage and cardioprotective benefits of PCSK9 take center stage at the American College of Cardiology meeting. Circulation. 2017;135(25):2562–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Caffrey M. Rival PCSK9 makers cut prices to get approval from UK health service. AJMC.com Managed Markets Network. 2016. http://www.ajmc.com/newsroom/rival-pcsk9-makers-cut-prices-to-get-approval-from-uk-health-service. Accessed 3 July 2017.

  16. Elgin B, Langreth R. How big pharma uses charity programs to cover for drug price hikes. Bloomberg Business Week. 2016. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-19/the-real-reason-big-pharma-wants-to-help-pay-for-your-prescription. Accessed 3 Jul 2017.

  17. Nunan M, Duke T. Effectiveness of pharmacy interventions in improving availability of essential medicines at the primary healthcare level. Trop Med Int Health. 2011;16(5):647–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mekonnen AB, McLachlan AJ, Brien JA. Pharmacy-led medication reconciliation programmes at hospital transitions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2016;41(2):128–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Alliance for Patient Access. 2017. https://www.guidestar.org/profile/20-5130312. 13 Oct 2017.

  20. Hillman BJ, Frank RA, Rodriguez GM, I Medical, Technology Alliance Workshop p. New pathways to medicare coverage for innovative PET radiopharmaceuticals: report of a medical imaging & technology alliance (MITA) workshop. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(2):336–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hillman BJ, Frank RA, Rodriguez GM, Medical I, Technology Alliance Workshop P. New pathways to medicare coverage for innovative PET radiopharmaceuticals: report of a Medical Imaging & Technology Alliance (MITA) workshop. J Am Coll Radiol. 2012;9(2):108–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lobban TC, Camm AJ. Patient associations as stakeholders: a valuable partner for facilitating access to therapy. Europace. 2011;13(Suppl 2):ii21–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. McCormick D, Sayah A, Lokko H, Woolhandler S, Nardin R. Access to care after Massachusetts’ health care reform: a safety net hospital patient survey. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(11):1548–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Fay M, Malley J. HSA growth and the associated opportunities/challenges presented by pharmacy benefits. Benefits Q. 2014;30(3):8–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dong X, Fetterolf D. Specialty pharmacy: an emerging area of interest for medical management. Dis Manag. 2005;8(2):73–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Patterson CJ. Best practices in specialty pharmacy management. J Manag Care Pharm. 2013;19(1):42–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kesselheim AS, Tan YT, Darrow JJ, Avorn J. Existing FDA pathways have potential to ensure early access to, and appropriate use of, specialty drugs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(10):1770–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Penington R, Stubbings JA. Evaluation of specialty drug price trends using data from retrospective pharmacy sales transactions. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2016;22(9):1010–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lotvin AM, Shrank WH, Singh SC, Falit BP, Brennan TA. Specialty medications: traditional and novel tools can address rising spending on these costly drugs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(10):1736–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kirschenbaum BE. Specialty pharmacies and other restricted drug distribution systems: financial and safety considerations for patients and health-system pharmacists. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2009;66(24 Suppl 7):S13–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Patel BN, Audet PR. A review of approaches for the management of specialty pharmaceuticals in the United States. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(11):1105–14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Gleason PP, Alexander GC, Starner CI, Ritter ST, Van Houten HK, Gunderson BW, et al. Health plan utilization and costs of specialty drugs within 4 chronic conditions. J Manag Care Pharm. 2013;19(7):542–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Starner CI, Alexander GC, Bowen K, Qiu Y, Wickersham PJ, Gleason PP. Specialty drug coupons lower out-of-pocket costs and may improve adherence at the risk of increasing premiums. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(10):1761–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Baldini CG, Culley EJ. Estimated cost savings associated with the transfer of office-administered specialty pharmaceuticals to a specialty pharmacy provider in a medical injectable drug program. J Manag Care Pharm. 2011;17(1):51–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tu HT, Samuel DR. Limited options to manage specialty drug spending. Res Brief. 2012;22:1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Fitzgerald K, White S, Borodovsky A, Bettencourt BR, Strahs A, Clausen V, et al. A highly durable RNAi therapeutic inhibitor of PCSK9. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(1):41–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Gomes VS, Amador TA. Studies published in indexed journals on lawsuits for medicines in Brazil: a systematic review. Cad Saude Publica. 2015;31(3):451–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Pettignano R, Caley SB, McLaren S. The health law partnership: adding a lawyer to the health care team reduces system costs and improves provider satisfaction. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2012;18(4):E1–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Colleen McMullen, MA, MBA, for her excellent editorial critique.

Funding

No external funding was used in the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gill Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Kentucky, 326 Wethington Building, 900 South Limestone Street, Lexington, KY, 40536-0200, USA

    Thomas F. Whayne

Authors
  1. Thomas F. Whayne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas F. Whayne.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author confirms that he has no conflict of interest involving any pharmaceutical or medical device company or any other possible conflict.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Whayne, T.F. Outcomes, Access, and Cost Issues Involving PCSK9 Inhibitors to Lower LDL-Cholesterol. Drugs 78, 287–291 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-018-0867-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-018-0867-9

Search

Navigation