Analysis and comparison of the cost-effectiveness of statins according to the baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level in Korea.

ABSTRACT

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: There are a few Korean studies on the economics of statins based on reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) data from other countries. This study aimed to analyse and compare the cost-effectiveness of statins according to the baseline LDL-C level in Korea. METHODS: Between January 2009 and December 2015, the data of patients who were prescribed statins for the first time were extracted from electronic medical records. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) based on the LDL-C reduction rate (CEA-RR) and target achievement rate. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Among high-intensity statins, the CEA-RR value of rosuvastatin (20 mg) was significantly lower than that of atorvastatin (40 mg) at all baseline LDL-C levels, except levels of 160-189 mg/dL. Additionally, at baseline LDL-C levels of 130-159 mg/dL, the CEA-RR value of rosuvastatin (20 mg) was three times lower than that of atorvastatin (40 mg) (9·1 ± 2·5 $/% vs. 31·7 ± 15·0 $/%, P < 0·001). Among moderate-to-low-intensity statins, rosuvastatin (5 mg) showed the lowest CEA-RR value (4·0 ± 0·6 $/%), and the value significantly increased for pitavastatin (2 mg) (8·0 ± 0·6 $/%), atorvastatin (10 mg) (9·5 ± 0·5 $/%), simvastatin (10·8 ± 1·1 $/%) and pravastatin (40 mg) (11·5 ± 0·9 $/%) in order (P < 0·0001). On changing from atorvastatin (10 mg) to atorvastatin (20 mg), the additional yearly cost was 16·0 and additional CEA-RR value was 2·74 $/%. On the other hand, on changing from atorvastatin (10 mg) to rosuvastatin (10 mg), the additional yearly cost was -16·3 and additional CEA-RR value was -1·8 $/%. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: We successfully compared the cost-effectiveness of statins according to the baseline LDL-C level in Korea. It is expected that our findings will help clinical decision-making with regard to statin prescription, and this will help reduce national medical expenditure.