The real-world cost and health resource utilization associated to the CNIC-polypill compared to usual care
Authors: Cordero A , Gonzalez-Juanatey J R , Castellano J M , Masana L , Dalmau R , Ruiz Olivar J E , Fuster V ,   NEPTUNO study
Published: October 2021

Abstract

Background
Cardiovascular (CV) polypills have been defined as scalable strategies for CV prevention. Nonetheless, their impact on health systems from an economic perspective has been questioned. The NEPTUNO study has evaluated the effectiveness, the healthcare resources utilization (HRU) and the economic impact of the CNIC-polypill - aspirin (ASA) 100mg, atorvastatin (A) 20/40mg and ramipril (R) 2,5/5/10mg – compared to usual care in a real-life clinical setting in Spain.

Methods
The NEPTUNO study is a retrospective, non-interventional analysis of an anonymized medical history dataset covering patients contained in the BIG-PAC administrative database in the years 2015–2018. Patients at age ≥18 years with medical history of previous CV disease were allocated in 4 different cohorts according to their therapy: (1) CNIC-polypill (case cohort), (2) identical mono-components (ASA,R,A), (3) equipotent medication and (4) usual care (control cohorts) and were followed for 2 years. To ensure comparability the cohorts a propensity score matching was performed. Direct all-cause HRU, including inpatient stay, outpatient visits, emergency room visits, rehabilitation, testing and medical treatment, were registered. Total direct medical costs were computed based on unit costs (€, 2020) assigned to each HRU item and were expressed on a per patient (PP) basis. Indirect costs where estimated based on registered productivity loss and the interprofessional average salary.

Results
8,946 patients were recruited. After PSM, each of the four study cohorts consisted of 1,614 patients. There was acceptable comparability between the study cohorts (balance). The mean age was 63.3 years and 60.4% were men. Cohort 1 compared with the control cohorts 2, 3 and 4 showed a significant reduction in HRU on a per patient average for all items (table), specifically in visits to primary care (16.6 vs. 18.7, 18.9 and 21.0; p&lt;0.001), visits to specialists (5.0 vs. 6.2, 6.5 and 7.3; p&lt;0.001), percentage of patients hospitalized (16.5% vs. 19.8%, 21.9% and 24.0%; p&lt;0.001) and days of hospitalization (2.3 vs. 3.4, 3.7 and 4.0; p&lt;0.001), respectively. The total cost per patient with the CNIC-Polypill compared to monotherapy, equivalents and other treatments, corrected for covariates (ANCOVA), was significantly lower (€4,668 vs. €5,587, €5,682 and €6,016; p&lt;0.001), representing a 16.5%, 17.8% and 22.4% reduction in total costs, respectively. Differences were also observed in healthcare costs, while in non-healthcare costs (loss of labor productivity) the differences were not significative (table).

Conclusion(s)
The results of our analysis demonstrate that the use of the CNIC-polypill results in a significantly lower HRU compared to control cohorts as well as a significantly lower total cost and direct medical costs. This data could support the sustainability and scalability of the polypill strategy.

Funding Acknowledgement
Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): Unrestricted grant from Ferrer Lab, Spain