Key result
Inclisiran offers cost-effectiveness in high-risk patients but lacks economic justification for broad primary prevention.
Why the study?
Is Inclisiran cost-effective for the prevention of cardiovascular events?
Meta-Analysis
Yes
Is Inclisiran cost-effective for the prevention of cardiovascular events?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Inclisiran's cost-effectiveness for cardiovascular prevention is context-dependent, showing value primarily in high-risk patients or high-income settings rather than broad primary prevention.
Background/Objectives: Cardiovascular diseases continue to be the foremost global cause of morbidity and mortality, representing about 40% of all causes of death. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is the most common and clinically important type of these, occurring when cholesterol accumulates over time in the artery intima, which induces an inflammatory process that leads to the production of atherosclerotic plaques. Nowadays, lipid profile alterations and high/very high cardiovascular risk can be observed in more and more patients. Combination therapy, which includes high-intensity statins, ezetimibe, bempedoic acid, and PCSK9-targeted medicines, can lower LDL-C by more than 80%, which is far more than the 50% that statin monotherapy usually achieves. Thus, novel lipid-lowering therapies are needed, as current agents—though effective in reducing cardiovascular events—leave considerable residual risk in many patients. Methods: The aim of our study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Inclisiran and its association with standard of care for the prevention of cardiovascular events across multiple international settings, in articles that reported quality-adjusted life years gained and cost-effectiveness metrics. Results: Our findings suggest that the cost-effectiveness of Inclisiran is highly context-dependent, shaped by local pricing, population risk, and system-level capacity. While Inclisiran demonstrates potential economic value in high-income settings or among high-risk patients, its widespread adoption for primary prevention appears unjustified under current conditions. Conclusions: Policymakers should consider risk-based targeting, price renegotiation, and performance-based reimbursement models to improve the value proposition of such interventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maștaleru et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in Cardiovascular diseases. Inclisiran vs. standard of care was evaluated on Cost-effectiveness and quality-adjusted life years gained. Inclisiran demonstrated potential economic value in high-income settings or among high-risk patients, but its widespread adoption for primary prevention appears unjustified under current conditions.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: