OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of cardiovascular-related hospitalization, statin adherence, and direct (medical and drug) and indirect (disability and medically related absenteeism) costs in US employees in whom atorvastatin or simvastatin was newly prescribed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Active employees aged 18 to 64 years with a new atorvastatin or simvastatin prescription were identified from a deidentified claims database for 23 privately insured US companies from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2006. Employees given atorvastatin were matched to those given simvastatin according to propensity scores based on patient characteristics, index statin dose, preindex cardiovascular events, and wage. Outcomes were compared between matched cohorts during the 2-year postindex period, including the risk of cardiovascular-related hospitalization, adherence to the index statin, use of other lipid-lowering drugs, direct medical costs for third-party payers, and indirect costs to employers. Indirect costs were computed as follows: Disability Payments + Daily Wage x Days of Medically Related Absenteeism. Atorvastatin and simvastatin drug costs were imputed using recent pricing to account for the availability of lower-cost generic simvastatin after the study period. RESULTS: Among 13,584 matched pairs, treatment with atorvastatin vs simvastatin was associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular-related hospitalization, higher adherence, and less use of other lipid-lowering drugs. The increase in statin costs associated with atorvastatin vs simvastatin therapy was almost completely offset by reductions in medical service and indirect costs. CONCLUSION: In this study, treatment with atorvastatin compared with simvastatin was associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular events, reduced indirect costs, and a minimal difference in total costs to employers.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of cardiovascular-related hospitalization, statin adherence, and direct (medical and drug) and indirect (disability and medically related absenteeism) costs in US employees in whom atorvastatin or simvastatin was newly prescribed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Active employees aged 18 to 64 years with a new atorvastatin or simvastatin prescription were identified from a deidentified claims database for 23 privately insured US companies from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2006. Employees given atorvastatin were matched to those given simvastatin according to propensity scores based on patient characteristics, index statin dose, preindex cardiovascular events, and wage. Outcomes were compared between matched cohorts during the 2-year postindex period, including the risk of cardiovascular-related hospitalization, adherence to the index statin, use of other lipid-lowering drugs, direct medical costs for third-party payers, and indirect costs to employers. Indirect costs were computed as follows: Disability Payments + Daily Wage x Days of Medically Related Absenteeism. Atorvastatin and simvastatin drug costs were imputed using recent pricing to account for the availability of lower-cost generic simvastatin after the study period. RESULTS: Among 13,584 matched pairs, treatment with atorvastatin vs simvastatin was associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular-related hospitalization, higher adherence, and less use of other lipid-lowering drugs. The increase in statin costs associated with atorvastatin vs simvastatin therapy was almost completely offset by reductions in medical service and indirect costs. CONCLUSION: In this study, treatment with atorvastatin compared with simvastatin was associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular events, reduced indirect costs, and a minimal difference in total costs to employers.
Authors: Kent G Meredith; Benjamin D Horne; Robert R Pearson; Chloe Allen Maycock; Donald L Lappe; Jeffrey L Anderson; Joseph B Muhlestein Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2006-11-16 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Terje R Pedersen; Ole Faergeman; John J P Kastelein; Anders G Olsson; Matti J Tikkanen; Ingar Holme; Mogens Lytken Larsen; Fredrik S Bendiksen; Christina Lindahl; Michael Szarek; John Tsai Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-11-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Thomas Thom; Nancy Haase; Wayne Rosamond; Virginia J Howard; John Rumsfeld; Teri Manolio; Zhi-Jie Zheng; Katherine Flegal; Christopher O'Donnell; Steven Kittner; Donald Lloyd-Jones; David C Goff; Yuling Hong; Robert Adams; Gary Friday; Karen Furie; Philip Gorelick; Brett Kissela; John Marler; James Meigs; Veronique Roger; Stephen Sidney; Paul Sorlie; Julia Steinberger; Sylvia Wasserthiel-Smoller; Matthew Wilson; Philip Wolf Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-01-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Paul M Ridker; Eleanor Danielson; Francisco A H Fonseca; Jacques Genest; Antonio M Gotto; John J P Kastelein; Wolfgang Koenig; Peter Libby; Alberto J Lorenzatti; Jean G MacFadyen; Børge G Nordestgaard; James Shepherd; James T Willerson; Robert J Glynn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-11-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Luis Miguel Blanco-Colio; Jose Luis Martín-Ventura; Eduardo de Teresa; Csaba Farsang; Allan Gaw; GianFranco Gensini; Lawrence A Leiter; Anatoly Langer; Pierre Martineau; Jesús Egido Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Jacqueline Müller-Nordhorn; Heike Englert; Karl Wegscheider; Hendrike Berger; Frank Sonntag; Heinz Völler; Wolfgang Meyer-Sabellek; Thomas Reinhold; Eberhard Windler; Hugo A Katus; Stefan N Willich Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2007-12-01 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Caroline C McGown; Zoë L S Brookes; Paul G Hellewell; Jonathan J Ross; Nicola J Brown Journal: Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol Date: 2015-02-14 Impact factor: 3.000
Authors: Arja Helin-Salmivaara; Piia Lavikainen; Emma Aarnio; Risto Huupponen; Maarit Jaana Korhonen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-10 Impact factor: 3.240