Statin cost-effectiveness comparisons using real-world effectiveness data: formulary implications.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness among generic and branded statins in routine clinical practice. METHODS: Retrospective database study of patients, 18+, who were newly prescribed statin therapy. Statin effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and attaining LDL-C goals were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 10,421 eligible patients, % LDL-C reduction was significantly greater (P < 0.001) with rosuvastatin (-31.6%) than other statins (-13.9 to -21.9%). Percentage of patients at moderate/high risk attaining LDL-C goal was higher (P < 0.001) for rosuvastatin (76.1%) versus other statins (57.6-72.6%). Rosuvastatin was more effective and less costly than atorvastatin. Among generic statins, simvastatin required >61% discount to branded price to achieve similar cost-effectiveness as generic lovastatin. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, rosuvastatin is more effective and less costly in lowering LDL-C and LDL-C goal attainment compared with atorvastatin. Simvastatin was more cost-effective compared with lovastatin if >61% discount to branded price was achieved.

The Cost-Benefit Balance of Statins in Hawai'i: A Moving Target.

Statins are lipid-lowering medications used for primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic disease and represent a substantial portion of drug costs in the United States. A better understanding of prescribing patterns and drug costs should lead to more rational utilization and help constrain health care expenditures in the United States. The 2013 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Part D Prescriber Public Use File for the State of Hawai'i was analyzed. The number of prescriptions for statins, total annual cost, and daily cost were calculated by prescriber specialty and drug. Potential savings from substituting the highest-cost statin with lower-cost statins were calculated. Over 421,000 prescriptions for statins were provided to Medicare Part D beneficiaries in Hawai'i in 2013, which cost $17.6M. The three most commonly prescribed statins were simvastatin (33.4%), atorvastatin (33.4%), and lovastatin (13.9%). Although rosuvastatin comprised 5.4% of the total statin prescriptions, it represented 30.1% of the total cost of statins due to a higher daily cost ($5.53/day) compared to simvastatin ($0.25/day) and atorvastatin ($1.10/day). Cardiologists and general practitioners prescribed the highest percentage of rosuvastatin (8% each). Hypothetical substitution of rosuvastatin would have resulted in substantial annual cost savings (Simvastatin would have saved $1.3M for 25% substitution and $5.1M for 100% substitution, while atorvastatin would have saved $1.1M for 25% substitution and $4.3M for 100% substitution). Among Medicare Part D beneficiaries in Hawai'i, prescribing variation for statins between specialties were observed. Substitution of higher-cost with lower-cost statins may lead to substantial cost savings.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cholesterol-lowering therapies in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost efficacy of atorvastatin, simvastatin, lovastatin, fluvastatin, pravastatin, and colestyramine in the reduction of low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and the cost per patient to achieve the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) therapeutic objectives in Spain. METHOD: The following treatments were evaluated: atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin 10-40 mg/day; lovastatin and fluvastatin 20-80 mg/day; and colestyramine 12-24 g/day. The cost effectiveness of these treatments was evaluated, in terms of cost per percentage of LDL-C reduction, by comparing annual treatment costs versus the efficacy of LDL-C reduction. Treatment costs included medication costs (2003 wholesale prices), control measures, and the treatment of adverse affects. The efficacy of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) was obtained from a meta-analysis of results obtained from clinical trials published between 1993 and 2003 that met the following criteria: monotherapy; >16 weeks of treatment; randomized allocation of individuals to the intervention and comparator groups; dietary treatment for > or =3 months before administration of medication; and double-blind measurement of outcomes. Average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated to assess the efficiency of cholesterol-lowering treatments. RESULTS: Efficacy, in terms of percentage of LDL-C reduction, ranged from 10% for colestyramine 12 g/day to 49% for atorvastatin 40 mg/day. Total annual treatment costs ranged from euro 321 for fluvastatin 20 mg/day to euro 1151 for atorvastatin 40 mg/day. Cost-effectiveness ratios, in terms of cost per percentage of LDL-C reduced, were: euro 11-23 for atorvastatin; euro 12-21 for simvastatin; euro 14-22 for lovastatin; euro 15-24 for fluvastatin; euro 21-42 for pravastatin; and euro 35-46 for colestyramine. Atorvastatin 10 mg/day was the most cost-effective treatment, followed by simvastatin 10 mg/day, lovastatin 20 mg/day, and fluvastatin 20 mg/day. Atorvastatin was the most cost-effective treatment in the achievement of the NCEP ATP III LDL-C reduction objectives in patients with high (<100 mg/dL) and moderate (<130 mg/dL) risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), with a cost per patient of euro 747 and euro 405 per year, respectively. Fluvastatin was the most cost-effective treatment in the achievement of the NCEP ATPIII therapeutic objective in patients with low-risk of CHD (LDL-C <160 mg/dL), with a cost per patient of euro 321. CONCLUSION: Atorvastatin 10 mg/day was the most cost-effective cholesterol-lowering drug, followed by simvastatin 10 mg/day, lovastatin 20 mg/day, and fluvastatin 20 mg/day. The preferred statin should be atorvastatin in patients with moderate-to-high CHD risk and fluvastatin in patients with low risk for CHD.

Clinical and economic outcomes of conversion of simvastatin to lovastatin in a group-model health maintenance organization.

OBJECTIVE: To (a) determine if converting patients on simvastatin to lovastatin affects whether they meet their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals as defined by the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) clinical practice guidelines and (b) assess the change in health care expenditures associated with such a conversion. METHODS: Primary and secondary prevention patients receiving simvastatin 10 mg to 40 mg daily between September 1, 2001, and February 28, 2002, were offered lovastatin at a therapeutically equivalent dose. Fasting lipid profiles and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels were measured and recorded at least 6 weeks after starting lovastatin. A clinical pharmacy staff member, in collaboration with the subject's primary care provider, subsequently adjusted lipid-lowering therapy as needed to attain target LDL-C goals, as determined by the ATP III clinical practice guidelines. RESULTS: Of 5,286 patients converted to lovastatin and for whom follow-up laboratory tests were drawn, 5,046 (95.5%) were converted successfully, and 240 (4.5%) had to be converted back to simvastatin due to intolerance (N=164, 3.1%) or failure to achieve LDL-C goal (N=76, 1.4%). The proportion of patients with LDL-C at or less than their target goal increased from 75.9% before the intervention to 79.1% after conversion to lovastatin (P <0.001). ALT levels did not change significantly. The mean ALT value, a proxy measure of safety before and after conversion for all patients, was 26.9 IU/L and 26.4 IU/L, respectively (P=0.134). For the 2,235 patients converted from lovastatin 80 mg to simvastatin 40 mg, the mean pre-ALT and post-ALT values were 26.9 IU/L and 26.5 IU/L (P=0.498). The annualized cost savings due to the conversions, expressed across the entire membership of this health maintenance organization (HMO), was 4.14 US dollars per member per year (PMPY), with no change in ALT levels. Patient savings in reduced copayments in the conversion from brand simvastatin to generic lovastatin were an average of 145.29 US dollars (62%) per patient (95% confidence interval, 143-149 US dollars, P <0.001). CONCLUSION: A clinical pharmacy-directed program designed to convert patients from simvastatin to lovastatin resulted in substantial expenditure reductions for this HMO and 62% copayment savings for members, without compromise in clinical outcomes as measured by lipid control (effectiveness) and ALT levels (safety). The proportion of patients at or less than their LDL-C goal increased coincident with the conversion from simvastatin to lovastatin.

Cholesterol-reduction intervention study (CRIS): a randomized trial to assess effectiveness and costs in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: The 1988 US National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel Report recommended initial treatment with niacin or bile acid sequestrants, followed by other agents if needed, to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels in hypercholesterolemic patients who require drug therapy. It is unknown how the effectiveness and costs of such an approach ("stepped care") compare in typical clinical practice to those of initial therapy with lovastatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We randomly assigned 612 patients, aged 20 to 70 years, who met 1988 National Cholesterol Education Program guidelines for drug treatment of elevated LDL-C level and had not previously used cholesterol-lowering medication, to either a stepped-care regimen or initial therapy with lovastatin (both n=306). The study, conducted at Southern California Kaiser Permanente, was designed to approximate typical practice: provider compliance with treatment plans was encouraged but not enforced, and patients paid for medication as they customarily would. RESULTS: At 1 year, the decline in mean LDL-C level was significantly greater among patients assigned to initial treatment with lovastatin (22% vs 15% for stepped care; P<.001), as was the number who attained goal LDL-C level (

Treating hyperlipidemia for the primary prevention of coronary disease. Are higher dosages of lovastatin cost-effective?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the average and marginal life-time cost-effectiveness of increasing dosages of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors, such as lovastatin, for the primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD). METHODS: We estimated the lifelong costs and benefits of the modification of lipid levels achieved with lovastatin based on published studies and a validated CHD prevention computer model. Patients were middle-aged men and women without CHD, with mean total serum cholesterol levels of 6.67, 7.84, and 9.90 mmol/L (258, 303, and 383 mg/dL), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels of 1.19 mmol/L (46 mg/dL), as described in clinical trials. We estimated the cost per year of life saved for dosages of lovastatin ranging from 20 to 80 mg/d that reduced the total cholesterol level between 17% and 34%, and increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level between 4% and 13%. RESULTS: After discounting benefits and costs by 5% annually, the average cost-effectiveness of lovastatin, 20 mg/d, ranged from $11,040 to $52,463 for men and women. The marginal cost-effectiveness of 40 mg/d vs 20 mg/d remained in this range ($25,711 to $60,778) only for persons with baseline total cholesterol levels of 7.84 mmol/L (303 mg/dL) or higher. However, the marginal cost-effectiveness of lovastatin, 80 mg/d vs 40 mg/d, was prohibitively expensive ($99,233 to $716,433 per year of life saved) for men and women, irrespective of the baseline total cholesterol level. CONCLUSIONS: Assuming that $50,000 per year of life saved is an acceptable cost-effectiveness ratio, treatment with lovastatin at a dosage of 20 mg/d is cost-effective for middle-aged men and women with baseline total cholesterol levels of 6.67 mmol/L (258 mg/dL) or higher. At current drug prices, treatment with 40 mg/d is also cost-effective for total cholesterol levels of 7.84 mmol/L (303 mg/dL) or higher. However, treatment with 80 mg/d is not cost-effective for primary prevention of CHD.

Maximizing the cost-effectiveness of lipid-lowering therapy.

Cardiovascular disease, including coronary heart disease, is the leading cause of death both in men and in women in the United States. The purpose of this review is to describe the effectiveness of lipid-lowering therapy in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, which has recently been extended to patients with mild to moderate hypercholesterolemia, and the cost of providing therapy, which would be prohibitive if all persons with hypercholesterolemia received treatment. Cost-effectiveness analysis provides a rational means of allocating limited health care resources by allowing the comparison of the costs of lipid-lowering therapy, in particular, therapy with beta-hydroxy-beta-methylglutaryl-CoA (coenzyme A) reductase inhibitors (statins), with the costs of atherosclerosis that could be prevented by lowering cholesterol. To extend the benefits of treatment to the large number of persons not receiving therapy, we need to implement more cost-effective treatment by improving risk assessment, increasing treatment effectiveness, and reducing the cost of therapy.

Cost effectiveness of statin therapy for the primary prevention of major coronary events in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost and cost effectiveness of hydroxymethylglutaryl (HMG)-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin) therapy for the primary prevention of major coronary events in the U.S. population with diabetes and LDL cholesterol levels > or =100 mg/dl, especially in the population with LDL cholesterol levels 100-129 mg/dl. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Analyses were performed using population estimates from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)-III, cost estimates from a health system perspective, statin LDL-lowering effectiveness from pivotal clinical trials, and treatment effectiveness from the diabetic subgroup analysis of the Heart Protection Study. RESULTS: -There are approximately 8.2 million Americans with diabetes, LDL cholesterol levels > or =100 mg/dl, and no clinical evidence of cardiovascular disease. Each year, statin therapy could prevent approximately 71,000 major coronary events in this population. In the subgroup with LDL cholesterol levels 100-129 mg/dl, the annual cost of statin treatment ranges from 600 to 1,000 US dollars per subject. In the population with LDL cholesterol levels > or =130 mg/dl, the annual cost ranges from 700 to 2,100 US dollars. Annual incremental cost per subject, defined as the cost of statin treatment plus the cost of major coronary events with statin treatment minus the cost of major coronary events without statin treatment, ranges from 480 to 950 US dollars in the subgroup with LDL cholesterol levels 100-129 mg/dl and from 590 to 1,920 US dollars in the population with LDL cholesterol levels > or =130 mg/dl. CONCLUSIONS: Statin therapy for the primary prevention of major coronary events in subjects with type 2 diabetes and LDL cholesterol levels 100-129 mg/dl is affordable and cost effective relative to statin therapy in subjects with higher LDL cholesterol levels.

Cost-effectiveness of statins.

Currently, 6 hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (statins) are marketed in the United States (US). Given the wide variation in the prices and efficacy of statins, formal cost-effectiveness analysis may improve drug selection decisions. To assess the cost-effectiveness of statin therapy in primary and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease, we developed a model of the costs and consequences of lipid-regulating therapy and estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of 5 statins (atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, simvastatin) at usual starting doses versus no therapy. Drug effects on serum lipids were assessed using data approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for product labeling. Annual risks of coronary event occurrence were estimated using Framingham Heart Study coronary risk equations developed for use in this model. Current estimates of direct medical costs of coronary heart disease were used to assign costs to health states and acute coronary events. Main outcome measurements were net cost (statin therapy minus savings in coronary heart disease treatment), gain in life expectancy, and cost per life-year saved. The maximum gain in life expectancy was achieved with atorvastatin, which also had a lower net cost than lovastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin. Compared with fluvastatin, atorvastatin's greater effectiveness is attained at a lower cost per life-year saved. The cost-effectiveness of HMG-CoA reductase inhibition in primary and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease has been improved with the introduction of atorvastatin.

Costs of coronary restenosis (Lovastatin Restenosis Trial).

Within the Lovastatin Restenosis Trial, restenosis has been clearly shown to increase resource utilization and costs. While it is not possible to generalize these results to other patient populations, it is clear that successful efforts to decrease restenosis will certainly improve efficacy while decreasing follow-up costs and increasing the cost-effectiveness of intervention in the coronaries.

Outcome monitoring of fluvastatin in a Department of Veterans Affairs lipid clinic.

The aggressive lipid-lowering goals recommended by the second Adult Treatment Panel (ATP II) have created an increasing demand for treatment with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors. Fluvastatin is the first completely synthetic agent in this class and offers a considerable price advantage over the other HMG-CoA therapies. In May 1994, the Buffalo Veterans Affairs Medical Center Lipid Clinic adopted a fluvastatin-preferred program in which all patients who were recommended for an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor would be treated with fluvastatin as a first-line agent. Fluvastatin was started at 20 mg daily and titrated to goal. Patients who were stable with other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors were converted to fluvastatin as just described. Preliminary analysis shows that, for new patients, 20 mg of fluvastatin daily at bedtime reduced low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by an average of 22% (range, 5-32%). Preliminary results for patients converted from another HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor showed that fluvastatin produced an additional LDL-C reduction of 18% (range, 5-30%). With a daily dose of 20 mg fluvastatin, patients with no heart disease (primary prevention) achieved ATP II goals in 60% of cases. For patients with established heart disease (secondary prevention), the goals of ATP II are lower but, despite this, 30% of patients taking fluvastatin at 20 mg daily achieved these goals. The patients in both groups who failed to achieve ATP II goals were titrated to a 40 mg daily dose, but the results of this titration are not yet available. Pharmacoeconomic outcomes were favorable.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Effect of lovastatin on cardiovascular resource utilization and costs in the Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study (AFCAPS/TexCAPS). AFCAPS/TexCAPS Research Group.

This cost-consequences analysis of the Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study compares the costs of lovastatin treatment with the costs of cardiovascular hospitalizations and procedures. The cost of lovastatin treatment was defined as the average retail price and the cost of drug safety monitoring and adverse experiences. Costs were determined by actual rates of hospitalizations and procedures. Within a trial, lovastatin treatment cost approximately $4,654/patient. Lovastatin treatment significantly reduced the cumulative rate of cardiovascular hospitalizations and procedures (p = 0.002). Over the duration of the study, the cumulative number of cardiovascular hospitalizations and related therapeutic procedures was significantly reduced by 29%. The time to first cardiovascular-related hospitalization or procedure was significantly extended by lovastatin (p = 0.002). Lovastatin reduced the frequency of cardiovascular hospitalization (28%), and cardiovascular therapeutic (32%) and diagnostic procedures (23%). Among therapeutic procedures, treatment reduced coronary artery bypass graft surgery by 19% and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty by 37%. Total cardiovascular-related hospital days were reduced by 26% (p = 0.025). The between-group offset in direct medical costs was $524, which resulted in a 11% cost offset of lovastatin therapy over the mean study duration of 5.2 years. Lovastatin provides meaningful reductions in cardiovascular-related resource utilization and reductions in direct cardiovascular-related costs associated with the onset of coronary disease.

Which statin is most efficient for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia? A cost-effectiveness analysis.

A review of the cost-effectiveness literature indicated that the hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A-reductase inhibitor fluvastatin is more cost-effective for achieving minor-to-moderate reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels than 3 other statins: lovastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin. The main goal of this study was to verify the applicability of these conclusions to Spanish health care costs and patterns of resource consumption related to the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. A stochastic simulation model was used to predict both the costs and effects of treating high-risk hypercholesterolemic patients with fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, or simvastatin. Epidemiologic data were used to find a suitable theoretic probability distribution model for baseline LDL-C values in high-risk hypercholesterolemic patients. The model was then used to generate 10,000 random observations of baseline LDL-C values; the corresponding LDL-C values after a 2-year treatment period were predicted as a function of the baseline value and the percentage reduction expected with a particular statin and dose, according to the results obtained in 2 meta-analyses. The probability of treatment discontinuation was also taken into account using estimates obtained in usual practice. The effects of treatment were expressed as the rate of success in achieving the goal level of LDL-C, as defined in the current Spanish recommendations for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. The average costs of treatment were computed from both the social and public-financing perspectives, including the cost of lipid-lowering drugs, physician visits, laboratory tests, and days off work, as appropriate. The occurrence of nonscheduled visits and workdays lost because of side effects were taken into account to compute indirect costs relevant to the social perspective. The potential costs of treating side effects were ignored. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to compare the cost-effectiveness ratios obtained with each of the 4 statins considered in this study. Model-based predictions of the effects, total costs, and cost-effectiveness ratios were made. Cost-effectiveness ratios were interpreted as the cost per patient meeting the goal of therapy, according to current Spanish recommendations. The data showed that fluvastatin had the lowest cost-effectiveness ratios when LDL-C levels required reduction to < or =25% of baseline levels. In this situation, fluvastatin was more cost-effective than lovastatin, pravastatin, or simvastatin from public-financing and social perspectives.

Use of diagnostic cluster methodology for therapeutic costing and drug surveillance of HMG-CoA reductase-inhibitor therapy.

Diagnostic cluster methodology groups patients having similar medical conditions according to their International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision codes. Episodes of care related to the diagnostic cluster can then be tracked from the claims data to determine the total charges associated with patient management. A retrospective claims analysis using an episode registry database was conducted to determine the 1-year (July 1, 1995, to June 30, 1996) covered charge for statin therapy, the overall cost of treating related cardiovascular (CV) disease, and the cost impact of coadministration of drugs that potentially compete for hepatic metabolism. The three statin treatment groups (lovastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin) were similar with respect to age, gender, mean number of prescription refills, rate of refill compliance, and prevalence of the coadministration of potentially interacting agents. Before adjustment for severity of illness, there were no significant differences between groups in prescription drugs/services (statin Rx/Svc) or total CV charges. After adjustment for severity of illness, the pravastatin group had the lowest statin Rx/Svc and total CV charges. Within the group with the greatest severity of illness, statin Rx/Svc charges were significantly lower with pravastatin than with lovastatin and simvastatin. The statin Rx/Svc charges were not significantly different between lovastatin and simvastatin. Coadministration of a potentially interacting agent significantly increased both the statin Rx/Svc and total CV charges within the simvastatin-treated group but did not significantly influence costs in the lovastatin- or pravastatin-treated groups. The estimates of direct costs derived from this analysis are consistent with findings in the published literature and demonstrate that pravastatin has cost advantages compared with lovastatin and simvastatin. Diagnostic cluster methodology also generated valuable information regarding drug surveillance and the health care cost impact of potential drug-drug interactions with selected statins.

Cost-effectiveness of simvastatin versus cholestyramine: results for Sweden.

Cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated for each of 2 plasma cholesterol-lowering drug therapies, the HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor simvastatin and the well established cholestyramine, in comparison with a nonpreventive drug treatment alternative. The study was confined to Swedish men (aged 37 to 64 years at start of therapy) with total serum cholesterol levels above 6.2 mmol/L who were free of coronary artery disease (CAD). Costs included expected direct costs of plasma cholesterol-lowering treatment less expected savings resulting from preventing CAD. Effects were defined as changes in life expectancy. A discount rate of 5% and Swedish kronor (SEK) 1988 prices were used. The impact on CAD risks was calculated using multivariate logistic risk estimates from the Framingham Heart Study; Swedish estimates were used to calculate intervention costs and changes in healthcare costs. Over the range of cholesterol levels examined (6.2 to 9.8 mmol/L), simvastatin was consistently more cost-effective than cholestyramine.

Simvastatin: a pharmacoeconomic evaluation of its cost-effectiveness in hypercholesterolaemia and prevention of coronary heart disease.

Epidemiological and intervention study results support reduction of coronary heart disease (CHD) risk, and hence direct and indirect costs, by lowering plasma lipids. Cost-effectiveness of a lipid-lowering strategy thus depends significantly on the extent of plasma lipid decrease achieved. The 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor simvastatin is a well tolerated and highly effective antihyperlipidaemic agent. Despite a current lack of direct evidence that simvastatin reduces CHD incidence, the cost-effectiveness of the drug {in terms of years of life saved (YOLS)} has been studied, based on findings of epidemiological trials. Simvastatin 20 mg/day is more cost-effective than cholestyramine 4g 3 times daily, particularly in men and in those with a higher pretreatment cholesterol level ( greater than 8 mmol/L) and other risk factors. Cost-effectiveness is also enhanced if treatment is started at a younger age (35 to 45 years) and maintained for a defined period rather than lifelong. Thus, while additional direct comparative studies are needed to confirm this finding, present evidence suggests simvastatin is a cost-effective intervention in appropriately selected patients.

Cost-effectiveness of drug therapy for hypercholesterolaemia: a review of the literature.

In this article we review published studies of the cost-effectiveness of drug therapy for hypercholesterolaemia to take stock of the principal findings that have been reported to date. We identified 9 studies that met all criteria for inclusion in our review, including 3 of bile-acid sequestrants (cholestyramine, colestipol), 2 of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (lovastatin), and 4 that considered both an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (simvastatin) and a bile-acid sequestrant (cholestyramine). While these studies were largely consistent in methodological approach, some differences were noted in the costs attributed to drug therapy. The cost-effectiveness of therapy with bile-acid sequestrants was found to range from $100 000 to $209 000 per year of life saved (1991 $US) for middle-aged men (42 to 55 years of age) with moderately high cholesterol levels (280 to 290 mg/dl) and otherwise average coronary risk characteristics. Corresponding cost-effectiveness ratios that have been reported for lovastatin range from $64 000 to $82 000, while those for simvastatin range from $45 000 to $65 000. Studies to date therefore suggest that therapy with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (i.e. lovastatin and simvastatin) is substantially more cost-effective than treatment with bile-acid sequestrants.

Simvastatin. A reappraisal of its cost effectiveness in dyslipidaemia and coronary heart disease.

The Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) has confirmed the link between the cholesterol-reducing effects of simvastatin and improved survival in patients with hypercholesterolaemia and pre-existing coronary heart disease (CHD). Pharmacoeconomic analyses of the 4S trial, using prospectively collected data for cost-generating events, demonstrate that the cost per year of life saved for simvastatin in such patients falls within the range considered cost effective. Reductions in resource utilisation costs (numbers of hospitalisations and revascularisation procedures) largely offset the acquisition cost of long term simvastatin treatment in the US. Models of primary prevention incorporating epidemiological data to predict CHD events generally suffer from deficiencies in the methods and assumptions used, and no firm conclusions can be made at present regarding relative cost effectiveness of the drugs studied, including simvastatin. It is generally agreed that cost effectiveness will improve in patients with higher absolute risk of CHD. In summary, simvastatin has been shown in a major clinical trial and its companion economic analyses to reduce mortality and to be cost effective in patients with hypercholesterolaemia and existing CHD. As is the case for others of its class, its cost-effectiveness ratio in primary prevention remains to be ascertained. This issue aside, simvastatin is a rational choice of cholesterol-lowering agent in secondary prevention whose use can be justified on an economic basis.

Allocation of resources between smoking cessation methods and lovastatin treatment of hypercholesterolaemia: based on cost effectiveness and the social welfare function.

OBJECTIVE: To use the social welfare function to decide on allocation of resources between smoking cessation methods and lovastatin treatment of hypercholesterolaemia for the primary prevention of coronary heart disease. METHOD: Three smoking cessation therapies (medical advice, nicotine gum and nicotine patch) were considered in smokers, and lovastatin 20, 40 and 80 mg/day was considered in individuals with hypercholesterolaemia (total cholesterol > 7.24 mmol/L [> 270 mg/dL]). Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to obtain parameter epsilon determining the exact form of the social welfare function in Catalonia, Spain. The preferable strategy was to give higher priority to the intervention that used one smoking cessation method and lovastatin treatment for hypercholesterolaemia and that was associated with a value of epsilon consistent with the social welfare function. RESULTS: A value of 1.58 (95% CI: 0.75-2.84) was obtained for parameter epsilon of the social welfare function, showing a nonutilitarian form. A higher priority should be given, based on the social welfare function, to the intervention using medical advice for smoking cessation and lovastatin 20-80 mg/day for hypercholesterolaemia, since this approach was associated with epsilon values of 2.8-2.9 in men and 1.8-2.4 in women, while interventions using nicotine substitution therapies were associated with epsilon values of < 0.9 in men and < 0.4 in women. The cost of treating all smokers and individuals with hypercholesterolaemia was 35% lower using medical advice for smoking cessation and lovastatin 20 mg/day, which was associated with epsilon values of 2.9 in men and 2.4 in women, than using a utilitarian solution consisting of nicotine patches for smoking cessation and lovastatin 20 mg/day. CONCLUSION: These results show that higher priority should be given to lovastatin treatment of hypercholesterolaemia than to nicotine substitution treatments for smoking cessation, based on cost effectiveness and the social welfare function. The study also showed the applicability of this method to decisions about resource allocation between competing treatments when society has a nonutilitarian social welfare function.

An economic analysis of the Atorvastatin Comparative Cholesterol Efficacy and Safety Study (ACCESS).

INTRODUCTION: The objective of the Atorvastatin Comparative Cholesterol Efficacy and Safety Study (ACCESS) was to compare the efficacy and safety of the five 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors in a randomised, controlled, yet large-scale study. ACCESS also produced data that permitted comparative analysis of the cost to achieve National Cholesterol Education Panel (NCEP) II low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) targets. STUDY DESIGN: A 54-week, multicentre, open-label, randomised, parallel-arm, active-control study in men and women with or without documented coronary heart disease or peripheral vascular disease. Data included medication use, clinic visits, adverse events, LDL-C and other laboratory measures. Analyses of resource use and cost are reported from a third-party payer perspective. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the following treatments: atorvastatin (10-80 mg/day); fluvastatin (20-40 mg/day, or 40 mg twice daily); lovastatin (20-40 mg/day, or 40 mg twice daily); pravastatin (10-40 mg/day); or simvastatin (10-40 mg/day). Patients were started at the lowest available dose and titrated to higher doses at 6-week intervals until they achieved the NCEP II LDL-C target or reached the highest available dose of medication. PATIENTS: A total of 153 centres enrolled 3887 patients: atorvastatin (n = 1944); fluvastatin (n = 493); lovastatin (n = 494); pravastatin (n = 478); and simvastatin (n = 478). Inclusion criteria included LDL-C >or= 30 mg/dL higher than NCEP II LDL-C target (stratified by risk factors), fasting triglyceride values < 400 mg/dL, and a confirmed negative serum pregnancy test. Known hypersensitivity to statins, use of prohibited medications, uncontrolled diabetes, acute liver disease and age > 80 years or < 18 years were among the exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Mean total treatment costs to reach LDL-C targets for patients receiving atorvastatin (US dollars 683.37 in 2001) were significantly less than mean total treatment costs for patients receiving fluvastatin (difference = US dollars 211.35, p < 0.01), lovastatin (US dollars 607.96, p < 0.01), pravastatin (US dollars 424.60, p < 0.01) and simvastatin (US dollars 95.74, p < 0.01). Results were robust to sensitivity analyses using alternative definitions of the patient population (randomised, intent-to-treat, completers) and cost measures (50th percentile charges, 95th percentile charges, Medicare prices). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the other statins studied, atorvastatin was associated with the lowest resource use and costs when used to treat patients to their NCEP II LDL-C targets. Atorvastatin was also associated with the highest percentage of patients achieving their desired clinical outcomes. Therefore, in cost-effectiveness terms, it dominated the four other statins.