Cost-effectiveness analysis of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin from a Canadian health system perspective.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the most commonly prescribed doses of rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin for managing various lipid parameters in patients with hypercholesterolemia over a 1-year time horizon from a Canadian health care perspective. METHODS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated for branded rosuvastatin compared with branded atorvastatin, generic simvastatin, and generic pravastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia in terms of percent reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and total cholesterol (TC)/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) ratio, as well as in TC, HDL-C, triglycerides (TG), apolipoprotein (Apo) B, the ApoB/ApoA-I ratio, and attainment of the Canadian LDL-C goal. The pharmacoeconomic model was constructed for a 1-year time horizon using efficacy data from a randomized, open-label trial including 2268 adults and the wholesale acquisition costs of branded rosuvastatin and atorvastatin and generic simvastatin and pravastatin in British Columbia. RESULTS: The most commonly prescribed doses of each of the 4 statins in British Columbia were as follows: rosuvastatin 10 mg (75.8% of all rosuvastatin doses); atorvastatin 10 and 20 mg (46.4% and 35.3%, respectively, of all atorvastatin doses); simvastatin 20 and 40 mg (42.5% and 31.8%, respectively, of all simvastatin doses); and pravastatin 20 and 40 mg (55.0% and 34.1%, respectively, of all pravastatin doses). Rosuvastatin 10 mg was dominant (ie, was more effective at a lower cost) relative to atorvastatin 10 and 20 mg, simvastatin 20 and 40 mg, and pravastatin 40 mg in terms of reductions in LDL-C, TC/ HDL-C ratio, TC, ApoB, and ApoB/ApoA-I ratio, increases in HDL-C, and attainment of the LDL-C goal. Compared with pravastatin 20 mg, the ICER per percent reduction in LDL-C, TC/HDL-C ratio, TC, TG, ApoB, or ApoB/ApoA-I or increase in HDL-C ranged from $3.89 to $26.07; the value for 1 additional patient achieving the LDL-C goal was $419.75. When the statin doses were aggregated based on the Canadian statin-utilization pattern, rosuvastatin was dominant relative to atorvastatin on all effectiveness measures evaluated. When rosuvastatin was compared with generic simvastatin and pravastatin, the annual costs for 1 additional patient achieving the LDL-C goal were $144.51 and $373.91, respectively. Based on the sensitivity analysis, rosuvastatin was associated with the highest probability of cost-effectiveness compared with the other statins over a broad range of monetary values per unit of clinical effect. CONCLUSION: When percent changes in lipid parameters and rates of LDL-C goal attainment were considered in patients with hypercholesterolemia in British Columbia, rosuvastatin 10 mg was more cost-effective than the most frequently used doses of atorvastatin (10 and 20 mg), generic simvastatin (20 and 40 mg), and generic pravastatin (20 and 40 mg).

Statin's cost-effectiveness: a Canadian analysis of commonly prescribed generic and brand name statins.

BACKGROUND: Generic statins may be considered as a compelling treatment option for managing dyslipidemia, due to their reduced cost, compared to their brand name equivalent. However, further assessment is needed to determine whether using a particular generic statin is more cost-effective relative to other brand-name statins. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of the most commonly prescribed statins in Canada with respect to 1) lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level (LDL-C) and 2) achieving National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) LDL-C goal. METHODS: The study was conducted from the perspective of Canadian payers over a 1-year time horizon. Clinical data were obtained from the STELLAR trial (n=2268) in which patients received fixed doses of rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, simvastatin and pravastatin. Brand and generic drug costs were based on wholesale acquisition costs. Relative cost-effectiveness was assessed using the net monetary benefit approach (NMB), which allows probabilistic cost-effectiveness comparison of the various treatment options over a wide range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) values for a unit of clinical effect. RESULTS: Rosuvastatin 10mg was the most cost-effective statin over the largest range of WTP values. Pravastatin 10mg was cost-effective when the clinical outcomes had little or no monetary value. Rosuvastatin 20 mg was more cost-effective at the highest end of the WTP spectrum. CONCLUSION: The result of this analysis provides evidence that prescribing generic statins in Canada does not necessarily translate into the most cost-effective option for treating dyslipidemia; especially as the monetary value of 1% decrease in LDL-C or patients achieving NCEP ATP III target increases.