Cardiovascular–Kidney–Metabolic syndrome Pharmacoeconomics, and the journey to India-specific evidence

Le résumé fourni par la source

Cardiovascular–kidney–metabolic (CKM) syndrome reframes obesity, type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease as a single interconnected continuum requiring integrated management. Unusually for a clinical guideline, the 2026 AHA/ACC/ADA/ASN guideline accompanies recommendations with formal economic value statements. These are based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios assessed against a common willingness-to-pay threshold using 2025 US prices. We discuss this pharmacoeconomic evidence and use it as a starting point to examine a broader question, i.e., how, and to what extent, economic value assessments can be transferred across jurisdictions. Using India as a worked example, we show that adaptation of foreign economic evidence requires substantially more than drug acquisition cost adjustment. We decompose transferability into the decision rule, cost numerator, effect denominator, and financing context, and demonstrate how differences within and across these domains can act in opposing and variable directions. Value-for-money is often driven less by pharmacology or pathology than by contextual determinants including pricing, threshold selection, baseline risk, utility valuation, affordability, and financial protection. Consequently, the net effect on cost-effectiveness cannot be predicted and must be re-derived. Foreign economic recommendations are frequently imported, superficially adapted, or replaced by implicit rationing without formal evaluation; none provides a satisfactory basis for decision-making. We propose a roadmap for generating context-specific pharmacoeconomic evidence in CKM syndrome, organised around the therapeutic questions raised by the guideline, while extending them to local priorities. This living evidence-and-economics capability may help generate locally relevant guidance and offer a framework adaptable by other health systems facing similar challenges.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.