OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify the most cost-effective statin or combination of statins, from the perspective of a managed care payer. METHODS: A decision-analytic model compared the cost-effectiveness of titration to goal with atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin in patients with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Effectiveness measures included the percentage change from baseline LDL-C and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and the percentage of patients achieving National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Second Adult Treatment Panel (ATP II) LDL-C goals. Direct medical costs were calculated based on drug, physician, and laboratory resource use, multiplied by wholesale acquisition costs for drugs and the 2005 Medicare reimbursement rates for services. A Monte Carlo simulation tested the sensitivity of results to model efficacy inputs. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, rosuvastatin dominated atorvastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin. Generic lovastatin dominated fluvastatin. The incremental (absolute) reduction in LDL-C, increase in HDL-C, and increase in patients to goal with rosuvastatin compared with lovastatin were 16%, 3%, and 27%, respectively. Incremental costs per additional 1% reduction in LDL-C, 1% increase in HDL-C, and patient to goal with rosuvastatin versus lovastatin were $8, $41, and $436, respectively. A wide variety of assumptions were assessed and Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses were conducted. Findings were most sensitive to the cost of lovastatin. CONCLUSION: Rosuvastatin dominates atorvastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin because it is more effective and less costly, and it may be considered cost-effective compared with generic lovastatin. The most cost-effective two-statin formulary contained lovastatin and rosuvastatin.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify the most cost-effective statin or combination of statins, from the perspective of a managed care payer. METHODS: A decision-analytic model compared the cost-effectiveness of titration to goal with atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin in patients with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Effectiveness measures included the percentage change from baseline LDL-C and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and the percentage of patients achieving National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Second Adult Treatment Panel (ATP II) LDL-C goals. Direct medical costs were calculated based on drug, physician, and laboratory resource use, multiplied by wholesale acquisition costs for drugs and the 2005 Medicare reimbursement rates for services. A Monte Carlo simulation tested the sensitivity of results to model efficacy inputs. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, rosuvastatin dominated atorvastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin. Generic lovastatin dominated fluvastatin. The incremental (absolute) reduction in LDL-C, increase in HDL-C, and increase in patients to goal with rosuvastatin compared with lovastatin were 16%, 3%, and 27%, respectively. Incremental costs per additional 1% reduction in LDL-C, 1% increase in HDL-C, and patient to goal with rosuvastatin versus lovastatin were $8, $41, and $436, respectively. A wide variety of assumptions were assessed and Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses were conducted. Findings were most sensitive to the cost of lovastatin. CONCLUSION:Rosuvastatin dominates atorvastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin because it is more effective and less costly, and it may be considered cost-effective compared with generic lovastatin. The most cost-effective two-statin formulary contained lovastatin and rosuvastatin.
Authors: Michael B Clearfield; John Amerena; Jean-Pierre Bassand; Hugo R Hernández García; Sam S Miller; Froukje F M Sosef; Michael K Palmer; Brian S Bryzinski Journal: Trials Date: 2006-12-21 Impact factor: 2.279