Cost-Effectiveness of High, Moderate and Low-Dose Statins in the Prevention of Vascular Events in the Brazilian Public Health System / Efetividade de Estatinas em Dose Alta, Moderada e Baixa na Prevenção de Eventos Vasculares no SUS

Background: Statins have proven efficacy in the reduction of cardiovascular events, but the financial impact of its widespread use can be substantial. Objective: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of three statin dosing schemes in the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS) perspective. Methods: We developed a Markov model to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of low, intermediate and high intensity dose regimens in secondary and four primary scenarios (5%, 10%, 15% and 20% ten-year risk) of prevention of cardiovascular events. Regimens with expected low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction below 30% (e.g. simvastatin 10mg) were considered as low dose; between 30-40%, (atorvastatin 10mg, simvastatin 40mg), intermediate dose; and above 40% (atorvastatin 20-80mg, rosuvastatin 20mg), high-dose statins. Effectiveness data were obtained from a systematic review with 136,000 patients. National data were used to estimate utilities and costs (expressed as International Dollars - Int$). A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold equal to the Brazilian gross domestic product per capita (circa Int$11,770) was applied. Results: Low dose was dominated by extension in the primary prevention scenarios. In the five scenarios, the ICER of intermediate dose was below Int$10,000 per QALY. The ICER of the high versus intermediate dose comparison was above Int$27,000 per QALY in all scenarios. In the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, intermediate dose had a probability above 50% of being cost-effective with ICERs between Int$ 9,000-20,000 per QALY in all scenarios. Conclusions: Considering a reasonable WTP threshold, intermediate dose statin therapy is economically attractive, and should be a priority intervention in prevention of cardiovascular events in Brazil. .

Fundamento: Estatinas tem eficácia comprovada na redução de eventos cardiovasculares, mas o impacto financeiro de seu uso disseminado pode ser substancial. Objetivo: Conduzir análise de custo-efetividade de três esquemas de doses de estatinas na perspectiva do SUS. Métodos: Foi desenvolvido modelo de Markov para avaliar a razão de custo-efetividade incremental (RCEI) de regimes de dose baixa, intermediária e alta, em prevenção secundária e quatro cenários de prevenção primária (risco em 10 anos de 5%, 10%, 15% e 20%). Regimes com redução de LDL abaixo de 30% (ex: sinvastatina 10mg) foram considerados dose baixa; entre 30-40% (atorvastatina 10mg, sinvastatina 40mg), dose intermediária; e acima de 40% (atorvastatina 20-80 mg, rosuvastatina 20 mg), dose alta. Dados de efetividade foram obtidos de revisão sistemática com aproximadamente 136.000 pacientes. Dados nacionais foram usados para estimar utilidades e custos (expressos em dólares internacionais - Int$). Um limiar de disposição a pagar (LDP) igual ao produto interno bruto per capita nacional (aproximadamente Int$11.770) foi utilizado. Resultados: A dose baixa foi dominada por extensão nos cenários de prevenção primária. Nos cinco cenários, a RCEI da dose intermediária ficou abaixo de Int$10.000 por QALY. A RCEI de dose alta ficou acima de Int$27.000 por QALY em todos os cenários. Nas curvas de aceitabilidade de custo-efetividade, dose intermediária teve probabilidade de ser custo-efetiva acima de 50% com RCEIs entre Int$9.000-20.000 por QALY em todos os cenários. Conclusões: Considerando um LDP razoável, uso de estatinas em doses intermediárias é economicamente atrativo, e deveria ser intervenção prioritária na redução de eventos cardiovasculares no Brasil. .

Cost-effectiveness of high, moderate and low-dose statins in the prevention of vascular events in the Brazilian public health system.

BACKGROUND: Statins have proven efficacy in the reduction of cardiovascular events, but the financial impact of its widespread use can be substantial. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of three statin dosing schemes in the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS) perspective. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of low, intermediate and high intensity dose regimens in secondary and four primary scenarios (5%, 10%, 15% and 20% ten-year risk) of prevention of cardiovascular events. Regimens with expected low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction below 30% (e.g. simvastatin 10mg) were considered as low dose; between 30-40%, (atorvastatin 10mg, simvastatin 40 mg), intermediate dose; and above 40% (atorvastatin 20-80 mg, rosuvastatin 20mg), high-dose statins. Effectiveness data were obtained from a systematic review with 136,000 patients. National data were used to estimate utilities and costs (expressed as International Dollars - Int$). A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold equal to the Brazilian gross domestic product per capita (circa Int$11,770) was applied. RESULTS: Low dose was dominated by extension in the primary prevention scenarios. In the five scenarios, the ICER of intermediate dose was below Int$10,000 per QALY. The ICER of the high versus intermediate dose comparison was above Int$27,000 per QALY in all scenarios. In the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, intermediate dose had a probability above 50% of being cost-effective with ICERs between Int$ 9,000-20,000 per QALY in all scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Considering a reasonable WTP threshold, intermediate dose statin therapy is economically attractive, and should be a priority intervention in prevention of cardiovascular events in Brazil.

Prescribing high-dose lipid-lowering therapy early to avoid subsequent cardiovascular events: is this a cost-effective strategy?

BACKGROUND: While evidence shows high-dose statins reduce cardiovascular events compared with moderate doses in individuals with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), many primary care trusts (PCT) advocate the use of generic simvastatin 40 mg/day for these patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from 28 RCTs were synthesized using a mixed treatment comparison model. A Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatments taking into account adherence and the likely reduction in cost for atorvastatin when the patent expires. There is a clear dose-response: rosuvastatin 40 mg/day produces the greatest reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (56%) followed by atorvastatin 80 mg/day (52%), and simvastatin 40 mg/day (37%). Using a threshold of £20,000 per QALY, if adherence levels in general practice are similar to those observed in RCTs, all three higher dose statins would be considered cost-effective compared to simvastatin 40 mg/day. Using the net benefits of the treatments, rosuvastatin 40 mg/day is estimated to be the most cost-effective alternative. If the cost of atorvastatin reduces in line with that observed for simvastatin, atorvastatin 80 mg/day is estimated to be the most cost-effective alternative. CONCLUSION: Our analyses show that current PCT policies intended to minimize primary care drug acquisition costs result in suboptimal care.

Impact of restricted reimbursement on the use of statins in Finland: a register-based study.

OBJECTIVES: New and expensive medicines are a driving force behind growth in medicine costs, and policies promoting use of less expensive products have been widely introduced. This study investigated the short-term consequences of the restricted reimbursement of expensive statins (atorvastatin and rosuvastatin) on the use of statins in Finland. METHODS: Data on patients purchasing atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, or simvastatin in 2002-2007 were retrieved from the nationwide Prescription Register. Outcome measures included the time trend in the numbers of purchasers and initiators of different statins, the morbidities of new users before and after the new policy, and the proportion of users of expensive statins switching to other statins. RESULTS: After the restriction, the numbers of purchasers of atorvastatin and rosuvastatin dropped, and atorvastatin and rosuvastatin were seldom prescribed as first-line therapy. Before the restriction, 20.9% of new users of atorvastatin and 18.4% of those of rosuvastatin had either coronary artery disease or familial hyperlipidemia. After the restriction the corresponding figures were 28.7% and 26.8%. After the restriction new users of atorvastatin and rosuvastatin were also more likely to use other cardiovascular medicines or antidiabetics or to have previous statin purchases. A total of 57.6% of those using atorvastatin and 49.2% of those using rosuvastatin before the restriction switched to a less expensive statin. CONCLUSIONS: Restricted reimbursement of expensive statins decreased their use. It seems that after the policy new statin treatments have channeled appropriately. Although it is likely that the cost-containment aim of the policy was reached, health and long-term effects are not known.

Rosuvastatin for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia.

Rosuvastatin, a new hydrophilic 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor (statin), is approved as an adjunct to diet in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia, mixed dyslipidemia, or Fredrickson type IV hypercholesterolemia. Because of its increased affinity for the reductase, rosuvastatin reduces the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) level more than atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin do, without additional adverse effects. In addition, cytochrome P450 isoenzymes do not extensively metabolize rosuvastatin, and inhibitors of these isoenzymes do not substantially affect it. Rosuvastatin could be a first-line option for patients requiring a reduction of 50% or more to reach the LDL goal of the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III. Rosuvastatin monotherapy may allow patients to achieve this LDL goal earlier, and it may help them avoid combination therapy or potential adverse effects of high-dose statin therapy. However, because cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality data are lacking for rosuvastatin (but available for all other marketed statins) and because its postmarketing data are limited, rosuvastatin should be reserved for patients requiring an LDL reduction of 50% or less who cannot reach the recommended goal with other statins because of adverse effects, drug interactions, or cost.