This preprint assessed the cost-effectiveness of evolocumab when added to standard therapy in patients at high cardiovascular (CV) risk who have not had a prior myocardial infarction (MI) or ischemic stroke (IS). The rationale was that evolocumab reduces major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) both in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and in those at high CV risk without prior MI or stroke; emerging outcomes evidence and updated guideline recommendations motivated reassessment specifically in the latter population as represented by the VESALIUS–CV trial.
Investigators adapted a previously published Markov cohort state-transition model to simulate the VESALIUS–CV trial population over a lifetime horizon. The model included discrete health states: high-risk without prior MI or IS, non-fatal MI, non-fatal IS, post-MI, post-IS, cardiovascular (CV) death, and non-CV death. Revascularization (RV) was included as a modeled procedure with associated costs. The model produced lifetime estimates of events, costs, life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).
The analysis compared evolocumab plus standard therapy versus standard therapy alone. The base case used a US payer perspective and a lifetime time horizon. Three scenario analyses were performed: Scenario 1 retained the US payer perspective but applied alternative CV risk reduction estimates; Scenarios 2 and 3 adopted a US societal perspective while varying the source of risk reduction estimates.
Cardiovascular risk reduction inputs in the base case were drawn from evolocumab CV outcomes trials, specifically VESALIUS–CV, FOURIER, and FOURIER–OLE. Scenario 1 used risk reduction estimates derived from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaboration 2010 meta-analysis. Scenarios 2 and 3 used the same two alternative approaches (trial-based and CTT-based, respectively) but from a societal perspective. The manuscript reports that these sources informed the model transition probabilities and event reductions; detailed numerical inputs beyond those summarized in the results were not reported in this summary document.
Primary modeled clinical outcomes included MACE (defined as MI, IS, or CV death) and RV procedures. Economic outputs included total costs, incremental costs, LYs, QALYs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Costs were reported in US dollars, and the price used for evolocumab in the base case was the current direct-to-patient price of $3,107 per year.
In the base-case analysis (US payer perspective, trial-based efficacy inputs), adding evolocumab to standard therapy at $3,107 per year produced projected lifetime reductions of 0.24 MACE events and 0.17 RV procedures per person. The intervention was associated with incremental costs of $24,430 and incremental QALYs of 0.34, yielding an ICER of $71,162 per QALY gained.
Evolocumab remained cost-effective across the three scenario analyses presented. The reported ICERs were:
All reported ICERs were substantially below the $120,000 per QALY threshold referenced from the 2025 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology cost/value methodology statement.
Based on the modeled projections, evolocumab added to standard therapy is estimated to improve cardiovascular outcomes and quality-adjusted survival for patients at high CV risk without prior MI or stroke. At the specified annual price and across evaluated scenarios, the intervention met conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds used by the authors. The manuscript notes that it is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed; the authors explicitly state that the results should not be used to guide clinical practice until reviewed.
The study was funded by Amgen (United States). Several authors are employees of and own stock in Amgen; other authors disclose consultancy relationships with multiple industry firms. The clinical trial identifier provided is NCT03872401. The authors state that all data produced in the study are available upon reasonable request. The preprint was posted July 27, 2026. The manuscript follows standard declarations regarding ethics and participant consent as reported, and it emphasizes that findings remain preliminary until peer review.
Note: This rewritten summary is limited to information reported in the preprint. Detailed model inputs, parameter values, and full sensitivity analyses beyond the scenario ICERs summarized here were not reported in the source excerpt and would require consultation of the full manuscript or supplementary materials.