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.

The pharmacoeconomic benefits of cholesterol reduction.

Recent studies show that cholesterol-lowering therapy can reduce morbidity and mortality in hypercholesterolemic patients without preexisting coronary heart disease (primary prevention) and with coronary heart disease (secondary prevention). The high cost of treatment per event prevented, especially for primary prevention, raises concerns about widespread use of cholesterol-lowering therapy. Does cholesterol reduction reduce utilization of healthcare resources, and can society afford to pay for reducing cholesterol in all patients with hypercholesterolemia, irrespective of risk factors? Is cost-effectiveness of therapy affected by differing cholesterol levels, age of the patients, the duration of therapy, or the presence of risk factors? Current pharmacoeconomic studies support the use of the statins for secondary prevention, and primary prevention in high-risk patients, and provide key information for policy decision making in the treatment of patients with hypercholesterolemia.

Pravastatin alone and in combination with low-dose cholestyramine in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia and coronary artery disease.

This randomized, open-label study compared the cost efficiency of low-dose pravastatin combined with low-dose cholestyramine with high-dose pravastatin monotherapy in 59 patients with moderate hypercholesterolemia and coronary disease. Both regimes were effective in improving lipid profiles in these patients; however, low-dose combination therapy enhanced achievement in therapeutic goals and cost efficiency.

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.

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.