Lifetime effects and cost-effectiveness of standard and higher-intensity statin therapy across population categories in the UK: a microsimulation modelling study.

Background: Cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality have declined across developed economies and granular up-to-date cost-effectiveness evidence is required for treatments targeting large populations. To assess the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of standard and higher intensity statin therapy in the contemporary UK population 40-70 years old. Methods: A cardiovascular disease microsimulation model, developed using the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration data (117,896 participants; 5 years follow-up), and calibrated in the UK Biobank cohort (501,854 participants; 9 years follow-up), projected risks of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, diabetes, cancer and vascular and nonvascular death for all UK Biobank participants without and with statin treatment. Meta-analyses of trials and cohort studies informed statins' relative effects on cardiovascular events, incident diabetes, myopathy and rhabdomyolysis. UK healthcare perspective was taken (2020/2021 UK£) with costs per 28 tablets of £1.10 for standard (35%-45% LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction) and £1.68 for higher intensity (≥45% LDL-C reduction) generic statin. Findings: Across categories by sex, age, LDL-C, and cardiovascular disease history/10-year cardiovascular risk, lifetime standard statin increased survival by 0.28-1.85 years (0.20-1.09 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)), and higher intensity statin by further 0.06-0.40 years (0.03-0.20 QALYs) per person. Standard statin was cost-effective across all categories with incremental cost per QALY from £280 to £8530, with higher intensity statin cost-effective at higher cardiovascular risks and higher LDL-C levels. Stopping statin early reduced benefits and was not cost-effective. Interpretation: Lifetime low-cost statin therapy is cost-effective across all 40-70 years old in UK. Strengthening and widening statin treatment could cost-effectively improve population health. Funding: UK NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (17/140/02).

Long-term cardiovascular risks and the impact of statin treatment on socioeconomic inequalities: a microsimulation model.

BACKGROUND: UK cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence and mortality have declined in recent decades but socioeconomic inequalities persist. AIM: To present a new CVD model, and project health outcomes and the impact of guideline-recommended statin treatment across quintiles of socioeconomic deprivation in the UK. DESIGN AND SETTING: A lifetime microsimulation model was developed using 117 896 participants in 16 statin trials, 501 854 UK Biobank (UKB) participants, and quality-of-life data from national health surveys. METHOD: A CVD microsimulation model was developed using risk equations for myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularisation, cancer, and vascular and non-vascular death, estimated using trial data. The authors calibrated and further developed this model in the UKB cohort, including further characteristics and a diabetes risk equation, and validated the model in UKB and Whitehall II cohorts. The model was used to predict CVD incidence, life expectancy, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the impact of UK guideline-recommended statin treatment across socioeconomic deprivation quintiles. RESULTS: Age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular events were key CVD risk determinants. Model-predicted event rates corresponded well to observed rates across participant categories. The model projected strong gradients in remaining life expectancy, with 4-5-year (5-8 QALYs) gaps between the least and most socioeconomically deprived quintiles. Guideline-recommended statin treatment was projected to increase QALYs, with larger gains in quintiles of higher deprivation. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated the potential of guideline-recommended statin treatment to reduce socioeconomic inequalities. This CVD model is a novel resource for individualised long-term projections of health outcomes of CVD treatments.

Prediction Models for Individual-Level Healthcare Costs Associated with Cardiovascular Events in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to develop prediction models for the individual-level impacts of cardiovascular events on UK healthcare costs. METHODS: In the UK Biobank, people 40-70 years old, recruited in 2006-2010, were followed in linked primary (N = 192,983 individuals) and hospital care (N = 501,807 individuals) datasets. Regression models of annual primary and annual hospital care costs (2020 UK£) associated with individual characteristics and experiences of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, coronary revascularization, incident diabetes mellitus and cancer, and vascular and nonvascular death are reported. RESULTS: For both people without and with previous cardiovascular disease (CVD), primary care costs were modelled using one-part generalised linear models (GLMs) with identity link and Poisson distribution, and hospital costs with two-part models (part 1: logistic regression models the probability of incurring costs; part 2: GLM with identity link and Poisson distribution models the costs conditional on incurring any). In people without previous CVD, mean annual primary and hospital care costs were £360 and £514, respectively. The excess primary care costs were £190 and £360 following MI and stroke, respectively, whereas excess hospital costs decreased from £4340 and £5590, respectively, in the year of these events, to £190 and £410 two years later. People with previous CVD had more than twice higher annual costs, and incurred higher excess costs for cardiovascular events. Other characteristics associated with higher costs included older age, female sex, south Asian ethnicity, higher socioeconomic deprivation, smoking, lower level of physical activities, unhealthy body mass index, and comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: These individual-level healthcare cost prediction models could inform assessments of the value of health technologies and policies to reduce cardiovascular and other disease risks and healthcare costs. An accompanying Excel calculator is available to facilitate the use of the models.

Hospital costs associated with adverse events in people with diabetes in the UK.

AIM: To estimate the annual hospital costs associated with a range of adverse events for people with diabetes in the UK. METHODS: Annual hospital costs (2019/2020) were derived from 15 436 ASCEND participants from 2005 to 2017 (120 420 person-years). The annual hospital costs associated with cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, transient ischaemic attack [TIA], ischaemic stroke, heart failure), bleeding (gastrointestinal [GI] bleed, intracranial haemorrhage, other major bleed), cancer (GI tract cancer, non-GI tract cancer), end-stage renal disease (ESRD), lower limb amputation and death (vascular, non-vascular) were estimated using a generalized linear model following adjustment for participants' sociodemographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: In the year of event, ESRD was associated with the largest increase in annual hospital cost (£20 954), followed by lower limb amputation (£17 887), intracranial haemorrhage (£12 080), GI tract cancer (£10 160), coronary revascularization (£8531 if urgent; £8302 if non-urgent), heart failure (£8319), non-GI tract cancer (£7409), ischaemic stroke (£7170), GI bleed (£5557), myocardial infarction (£4913), other major bleed (£3825) and TIA (£1523). In subsequent years, most adverse events were associated with lasting but smaller increases in hospital costs, except for ESRD, where the additional cost remained high (£20 090). CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides robust estimates of annual hospital costs associated with a range of adverse events in people with diabetes that can inform future cost-effectiveness analyses of diabetes interventions. It also highlights the potential cost savings that could be derived from prevention of these costly complications.

The effect of statins on muscle symptoms in primary care: the StatinWISE series of 200 N-of-1 RCTs.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty persists about whether or not statins cause symptomatic muscle adverse effects (e.g. pain, stiffness and weakness) in the absence of severe myositis. OBJECTIVES: To establish the effect of statins on all muscle symptoms, and the effect of statins on muscle symptoms that are perceived to be statin related. DESIGN: A series of 200 double-blinded N-of-1 trials. SETTING: Participants were recruited from 50 general practices in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who were considering discontinuing statin use and those who had discontinued statin use in the last 3 years because of perceived muscle symptoms. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to a sequence of six 2-month treatment periods during which they received 20 mg of atorvastatin daily or a matched placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-reported muscle symptoms rated using a visual analogue scale on the last week of each treatment period. Secondary outcomes included the participant's belief about the cause of their muscle symptoms, the site of muscle symptoms, how the muscle symptoms affected the participant, any other symptoms they experienced, adherence to medication, the participant's decision about statin treatment following the trial, and whether or not they found their own trial result helpful. RESULTS: A total of 151 out of 200 (75.5%) randomised participants provided one or more visual analogue scale measurements in a placebo period and one or more measurements in a statin period, and were included in the primary analysis. There was no evidence of a difference in muscle symptom scores between statin and placebo periods (mean difference statin minus placebo -0.11, 95% confidence interval -0.36 to 0.14; p = 0.398). Withdrawals, adherence and missing data were similar during the statin periods and the placebo periods. CONCLUSIONS: Among people who previously reported severe muscle symptoms while taking statins, this series of randomised N-of-1 trials found no overall effect of statins on muscle symptoms compared with the placebo. The slight difference in withdrawals due to muscle symptoms suggests that statins may contribute to symptoms in a small number of patients. The results are generalisable to patients who are considering discontinuing or have already discontinued statins because of muscle symptoms, and who are willing to re-challenge or participate in their own N-of-1 trial. FUTURE WORK: We recommend that additional statins and doses are explored using N-of-1 trials. More broadly, N-of-1 trials present a useful tool for exploring transient symptoms with other medications. LIMITATIONS: This study used 20-mg doses of atorvastatin only. Furthermore, a dropout rate of 43% was observed, but this was accounted for in the power calculations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30952488 and EudraCT 2016-000141-31. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Statins are one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the UK. There is strong evidence that they are effective in safely reducing heart disease; however, there is some doubt about whether or not statins cause muscle pain, stiffness or weakness. This research has been carried out to understand the effect of statins on muscle symptoms. To answer our question, we asked 200 volunteers from across England and Wales to participate in the study. Patients who joined the study either had recently stopped taking statins because of muscle symptoms or were considering stopping because of muscle symptoms. Patients who participated were randomly assigned to a sequence of six 2-month treatment periods during which they received either statins or a placebo. Neither patients nor their general practitioner knew which tablet they were receiving. This helped to reduce bias in the data. At the end of each treatment period, patients were asked to report any muscle symptoms, or any other symptoms, that they experienced. The key result of this work is that patients reported no difference, on average, in their muscle symptoms between periods of taking a statin and periods of taking a placebo. We also assessed the impact on the patient's quality of life by looking at how statins affected the following areas: general activity, mood, walking ability, normal work, relations with other people, sleep and enjoyment of life. As with muscle symptoms, there was no evidence of a difference between statin and placebo periods. The majority of patients who finished the trial decided to continue using statins after the trial. Future research should be carried out to assess different statin doses, as higher doses are often used following a heart attack. In addition, further work is needed to see how the approach we used could be adopted into everyday clinical care.

Streamlined mail-based methods for large randomised trials: lessons learnt from the ASCEND study.

Reliable assessment of the effects of an intervention usually requires large randomised trials but such studies are becoming increasingly complex and costly to run. 'Streamlined' trials are needed in which every aspect of the trial design and conduct is simplified, retaining only those elements needed to answer the research question and ensure the safety of the individual participants. In this review we discuss how the trial 'A Study of Cardiovascular Events iN Diabetes' (ASCEND) was streamlined. The study included a two-by-two factorial design: it assessed the effects of low-dose aspirin and, separately, supplementation with n-3 fatty acids on serious vascular events in 15,480 people with diabetes but no overt cardiovascular disease. Other key streamlined design features, such as mail-based recruitment and follow-up, mainly by post, with no in-person visits and use of a run-in period, are also described. We go on to discuss the success of the study and other studies that have employed a similar mail-based approach, and the type of clinical trials that are suitable for mail-based design. Finally, we consider the limitations of the study, and how these could be circumvented in future studies. ASCEND randomised large numbers of eligible participants, achieved good adherence rates and almost complete follow-up at a fraction of the cost of traditional clinic-based trials. Such studies are necessary if researchers are to address the important clinical questions most relevant to improving health.

Assessment of Vascular Event Prevention and Cognitive Function Among Older Adults With Preexisting Vascular Disease or Diabetes: A Secondary Analysis of 3 Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Acquisition of reliable randomized clinical trial evidence of the effects of cardiovascular interventions on cognitive decline is a priority. Objectives: To estimate the association of cognitive aging with the avoidance of vascular events in cardiovascular intervention trials and understand whether reports of nonsignificant results exclude worthwhile benefit. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of 3 randomized clinical trials in participants with preexisting occlusive vascular disease or diabetes included survivors to final in-trial follow-up in the Heart Protection Study (HPS), Study of the Effectiveness of Additional Reductions in Cholesterol and Homocysteine (SEARCH), and Treatment of HDL (High-Density Lipoprotein) to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events (HPS2-THRIVE) trials of lipid modification for prevention of cardiovascular events. Data were collected from February 1994 through January 2013 and analyzed from January 2015 through December 2018. Exposures: Incident vascular events and diabetes and statin therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cognitive function was assessed at the end of a mean (SD) of 4.9 (1.5) years of follow-up using a 14-item verbal test. Associations of the incidence of vascular events and new-onset diabetes during the trials, with cognitive function at final in-trial follow-up were estimated and expressed as years of cognitive aging (using the association of the score with age >60 years). The benefit on cognitive aging mediated through the effects of lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels on events was estimated by applying these findings to nonfatal event differences observed with statin therapy in the HPS trial. Results: Among 45 029 participants undergoing cognitive assessment, mean (SD) age was 67.9 (8.0) years; 80.7% were men. Incident stroke (n = 1197) was associated with 7.1 (95% CI, 5.7-8.5) years of cognitive aging; incident transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and new-onset diabetes were associated with 1 to 2 years of cognitive aging. In HPS, randomization to statin therapy for 5 years resulted in 2.0% of survivors avoiding a nonfatal stroke or transient ischemic attack and 2.4% avoiding a nonfatal cardiac event, which yielded an expected reduction in cognitive aging of 0.15 (95% CI, 0.11-0.19) years. With 15 926 participants undergoing cognitive assessment, HPS had 80% power to detect a 1-year (ie, 20% during the 5 years) difference in cognitive aging. Conclusions and Relevance: The expected cognitive benefits of the effects of preventive therapies on cardiovascular events during even the largest randomized clinical trials may have been too small to be detectable. Hence, nonsignificant findings may not provide good evidence of a lack of worthwhile benefit on cognitive function with prolonged use of such therapies. Trial Registration: isrctn.com and ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: ISRCTN48489393, ISRCTN74348595, and NCT00461630.

Effects of Vascular and Nonvascular Adverse Events and of Extended-Release Niacin With Laropiprant on Health and Healthcare Costs.

BACKGROUND: Extended-release niacin with laropiprant did not significantly reduce the risk of major vascular events and increased the risk of serious adverse events in Heart Protection Study 2-Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events (HPS2-THRIVE), but its net effects on health and healthcare costs are unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: 25 673 participants aged 50 to 80 years with previous cardiovascular disease were randomized to 2 g of extended-release niacin with 40 mg of laropiprant daily versus matching placebo, in addition to effective statin-based low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-lowering treatment. The net effects of niacin-laropiprant on quality-adjusted life years and hospital care costs (2012 UK £; converted into US $ using purchasing power parity index) during 4 years in HPS2-THRIVE were evaluated using estimates of the impact of serious adverse events on health-related quality of life and hospital care costs. During the study, participants assigned niacin-laropiprant experienced marginally but not statistically significantly lower survival (0.012 fewer years [standard error (SE) 0.007]), fewer quality-adjusted life years (0.023 [SE 0.007] fewer using UK EQ-5D scores; 0.020 [SE 0.006] fewer using US EQ-5D scores) and accrued greater hospital costs (UK £101 [SE £37]; US $145 [SE $53]). Stroke, heart failure, musculoskeletal events, gastrointestinal events, and infections were associated with significant decreases in health-related quality of life in both the year of the event and in subsequent years. All serious vascular and nonvascular events were associated with substantial increases in hospital care costs. CONCLUSIONS: In HPS2-THRIVE, the addition of extended-release niacin-laropiprant to statin-based therapy reduced quality of life-adjusted survival and increased hospital costs. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00461630.

Cost-effective recruitment methods for a large randomised trial in people with diabetes: A Study of Cardiovascular Events iN Diabetes (ASCEND).

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials require cost-effective methods for identifying, randomising, and following large numbers of people in order to generate reliable evidence. ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events iN Diabetes) is a randomised '2 × 2 factorial design' study of aspirin and omega-3 fatty acid supplements for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events in people with diabetes; this study used central disease registers and a mail-based approach to identify, randomise, and follow 15,000 people. In collaboration with UK consultants and general practitioners (GPs), researchers identified potentially eligible people with diabetes from centrally held registers (e.g. for retinopathy screening) and GP-held disease registers. Permission was obtained under section 251 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (previously section 60 of the NHS act 2001) to allow invitation letters to be generated centrally in the name of the holder of the register. In addition, with the collaboration of the National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR) Diabetes and Primary Care Research Networks (DRN and PCRN), general practices sent pre-assembled invitation packs to people with a diagnosis of diabetes. Invitation packs included a cover letter, screening questionnaire (with consent form), information leaflet, and a Freepost envelope. Eligible patients entered a 2-month, pre-randomisation, run-in phase on placebo tablets and were only randomised if they completed a randomisation form and remained willing and eligible at the end of the run-in. Follow-up is ongoing, using mail-based approaches that are being supplemented by central registry data. RESULTS: Information on approximately 600,000 people listed on 58 centrally held diabetes registers was obtained, and 300,188 potentially eligible patients were invited to join the study. In addition, 785 GP practices mailed invitations to 120,875 patients. A further 2,340 potential study participants were identified via other routes. In total, 423,403 people with diabetes were invited to take part; 26,462 entered the 2-month, pre-randomisation, run-in phase; and 15,480 were randomised. CONCLUSION: If sufficient numbers of potentially eligible patients can be identified centrally and the trial treatments do not require participants to attend clinics, the recruitment and follow-up of patients by mail is feasible and cost-effective. Wider use of these methods could allow more, large, randomised trials to be undertaken successfully and cost-effectively. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN60635500 , registered on 14 July 2005.

LDL cholesterol targets--how low to go?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) reduces vascular risk. Current guidelines recommend initiating statin therapy in patients with a yearly coronary heart disease risk of around 1.5-2%, and most clinicians prescribe standard statin regimens (e.g. 40 mg simvastatin daily). However, there is some uncertainty about whether patients at somewhat lower vascular risk should receive lipid-lowering therapy and also how intensive statin treatment should be. RECENT FINDINGS: Lowering LDL-C by around 1 mmol/l reduces vascular mortality and major morbidity by about one-fifth, and more recent randomized trials comparing intensive versus standard statin regimens confirm that a further LDL-C reduction of 0.5 mmol/l results in an additional 15% reduction in the risk of a major vascular event. Furthermore, statin therapy significantly reduces vascular mortality and morbidity in patients with less than 1% annual risk of a major vascular event. In general, statins are safe and well tolerated, but 80 mg simvastatin is associated with an unacceptably high risk of statin-induced myopathy. SUMMARY: Lipid-lowering therapy with statins is cost-effective for a wider range of patients than currently recommended. Intensive statin therapy is associated with larger reductions in vascular risk, and lower LDL-C targets (particularly for higher-risk individuals) should help reduce vascular mortality and major vascular morbidity substantially.

How the NHS research governance procedures could be modified to greatly strengthen clinical research.

Randomised controlled trials are the gold standard for testing the efficacy and safety of health interventions, especially medications, and researchers in the U.K. are required to gain approval from ethics committees, the regulatory body (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) and local NHS research governance departments for such trials. Although research governance is important to reassure trial participants that their rights and interests are protected, current practice is impeding research and presents a genuine threat to the U.K. and to the NHS's ability to deliver high-quality evidence on which doctors can base clinical decisions and improve the delivery of care. This article discusses recent experience of running large-scale clinical trials and suggests measures that could improve the current situation.

The impact of privacy and confidentiality laws on the conduct of clinical trials.

Justifiable concerns about the use of personal data in many aspects of daily life have led to the recent introduction in many countries of laws intended to regulate data use. Although participation in randomized clinical trials is generally with informed consent, recruitment procedures, complete follow-up, and the efficient conduct of trials may be substantially affected by such national or local privacy legislation. The relevant laws often have exceptions that allow the use of patient information in the public interest - including the use of data collected to improve or monitor public health or as part of medical research. However, regulatory bodies often give conflicting interpretations of the law, and this affects the conduct of large-scale trials. In particular, unnecessarily restrictive interpretation of the law may be a serious impediment to identification of potential participants for a trial, access to records to confirm events, continued follow-up of patients after the trial has been concluded, and secondary use of the trial data for purposes not directly related to the original purpose of the study. These obstacles could be overcome by better informing patients of the uses of records for medical research purposes, by using informed consent procedures that explain the nature of the research and the uses of the data, and by the use of identifiers, such as social security numbers that allow central follow-up. The clinical trial research community needs to ensure that the substantial benefits of large-scale randomized trials are explained both to the public and to those responsible for introducing legislation. The negative impact of privacy legislation on the use of personal health information and on conducting large studies needs to be understood and minimized.

Lifetime cost effectiveness of simvastatin in a range of risk groups and age groups derived from a randomised trial of 20,536 people.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of 40 mg simvastatin daily continued for life in people of different ages with differing risks of vascular disease. DESIGN: A model developed from a randomised trial was used to estimate lifetime risks of vascular events and costs of treatment and hospital admissions in the United Kingdom. SETTING: 69 hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 20,536 men and women (aged 40-80) with coronary disease, other occlusive arterial disease, or diabetes. INTERVENTIONS: 40 mg simvastatin daily versus placebo for an average of 5 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost effectiveness of 40 mg simvastatin daily expressed as additional cost per life year gained. Major vascular event defined as non-fatal myocardial infarction or death from coronary disease, any stroke, or revascularisation procedure. Results were extrapolated to younger and older age groups at lower risk of vascular disease than were studied directly, as well as to lifetime treatment. RESULTS: At the April 2005 UK price of 4.87 pounds sterling (7 euros; 9 dollars) per 28 day pack of generic 40 mg simvastatin, lifetime treatment was cost saving in most age groups and vascular disease risk groups studied directly. Gains in life expectancy and cost savings decreased with increasing age and with decreasing risk of vascular disease. People aged 40-49 with 5 year risks of major vascular events of 42% and 12% at start of treatment gained 2.49 and 1.67 life years, respectively. Treatment with statins remained cost saving or cost less than 2500 pounds sterling per life year gained in people as young as 35 years or as old as 85 with 5 year risks of a major vascular event as low as 5% at the start of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with statins is cost effective in a wider population than is routinely treated at present.

Cost-effectiveness of simvastatin in people at different levels of vascular disease risk: economic analysis of a randomised trial in 20,536 individuals.

BACKGROUND: Statin therapy reduces the rates of heart attack, stroke, and revascularisation among a wide range of individuals. Reliable assessment of its cost-effectiveness in different circumstances is needed. METHODS: 20,536 adults (aged 40-80 years) with vascular disease or diabetes were randomly allocated 40 mg simvastatin daily (10,269) or placebo (10,267) for an average of 5 years. Comparisons were made of hospitalisation and statin costs (2001 UK prices) during the scheduled treatment period between all simvastatin-allocated versus all placebo-allocated participants. Cost-effectiveness was estimated among different categories of participant. FINDINGS: Allocation to simvastatin was associated with a highly significant 22% (95% CI 16-27; p<0.0001) proportional reduction in hospitalisation costs for all vascular events, with similar proportional reductions in every subcategory of participant studied. During an average of 5 years, estimated absolute reductions in vascular event costs per person allocated 40 mg simvastatin daily ranged from UK 847 pounds sterling (SE 137) in the highest risk quintile studied to 264 pounds sterling (48) in the lowest. Mean excess cost of statin therapy among participants allocated simvastatin was 1497 pounds sterling (8), with similar absolute increases in every subcategory. Costs of preventing a major vascular event with 40 mg simvastatin daily ranged from 4500 pounds sterling (95% CI 2300-7400) among participants with a 42% 5-year major vascular event rate to 31,100 pounds sterling (22,900-42,500) among those with a 12% rate (corresponding to 5-year major coronary event rates of 22% and 4%, respectively). INTERPRETATION: Statin therapy is cost effective for a wider range of individuals with vascular disease or diabetes than previously recognised (particularly with lower-priced generics). It would be appropriate to consider reducing the estimated level of vascular event risk at which statin therapy is recommended.