[Choosing wisely when prescribing statins]. / Verstandig kiezen bij het voorschrijven van statinen.

The Dutch campaign 'Verstandig kiezen', based on the American programme 'Choosing wisely', aims to improve quality in healthcare, with attention to cost control. The 'Choosing wisely'-based programme can be applied in the choice of a statin. Atorvastatin and rosuvastatin are regarded as equal choices in various guidelines regarding cardiovascular risk management. Generic atorvastatin is available, and is approximately 25 times cheaper than rosuvastatin in almost equipotent doses. Rosuvastatin provides a greater LDL reduction than atorvastatin. Patient LDL targets can usually be achieved with atorvastatin, and rosuvastatin is not needed. At group level, there are no relevant differences in adverse-events profile between both statins. Atorvastatin and rosuvastatin do have different pharmacokinetic interactions. When changing medication, good provision of information is a prerequisite for patient satisfaction and compliance. We advise use of atorvastatin instead of rosuvastatin as drug of choice when the LDL target is not reached using simvastatin. However, under specific conditions, rosuvastatin should be the treatment of choice. Efficacy and adverse effects should then be evaluated at individual patient level.

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.

Services provided by community pharmacies in Wayne County, Michigan: a comparison by ZIP code characteristics.

OBJECTIVE: To document the availability of selected pharmacy services and out-of-pocket cost of medication throughout a diverse county in Michigan and to assess possible associations between availability of services and price of medication and characteristics of residents of the ZIP codes in which the pharmacies were located. DESIGN: Cross-sectional telephone survey of pharmacies coupled with ZIP code-level census data. SETTING: 503 pharmacies throughout the 63 ZIP codes of Wayne County, MI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The out-of-pocket cost for a 30 days' supply of levothyroxine 50 mcg and brand-name atorvastatin (Lipitor-Pfizer) 20 mg, availability of discount generic drug programs, home delivery of medications, hours of pharmacy operation, and availability of pharmacy-based immunization services. Census data aggregated at the ZIP code level included race, annual household income, age, and number of residents per pharmacy. RESULTS: The overall results per ZIP code showed that the average cost for levothyroxine was $10.01 ± $2.29 and $140.45 + $14.70 for Lipitor. Per ZIP code, the mean (± SD) percentages of pharmacies offering discount generic drug programs was 66.9% ± 15.0%; home delivery of medications was 44.5% ± 22.7%; and immunization for influenza was 46.7% ± 24.3% of pharmacies. The mean (± SD) hours of operation per pharmacy per ZIP code was 67.0 ± 25.2. ZIP codes with higher household income as well as higher percentage of residents being white had lower levothyroxine price, greater percentage of pharmacies offering discount generic drug programs, more hours of operation per week, and more pharmacy-based immunization services. The cost of Lipitor was not associated with any ZIP code characteristic. CONCLUSION: Disparities in the cost of generic levothyroxine, the availability of services such as discount generic drug programs, hours of operation, and pharmacy-based immunization services are evident based on race and household income within this diverse metropolitan county.

Trends in statin consumption and cardiovascular mortality in Croatia 2004-2012.

Prescribing of statins showed an increasing trend in all developed countries, during the last two decades. The aim of this study was to research the trends in statin consumption in the period from 2004 to 2012 as well as trends of cardiovascular mortality during the 1990 to 2012 period, and to compare them between Croatia and several neighbouring countries. Data on statin expenditures and consumption expresed in defined daily doses per 1000 inhabitants per day (DDD/TID), were taken from annual reports of Croatian Agency for Medicinal Products and Medical Devices (HALMED). Data on crude mortality rates and standardized cardiovascular mortality rates, were taken from the Croatian Health Statistics Yearbooks. The utilization of statins increased by 196.7% during the observed period, with the highest consumption of atorvastatin and simvastatin. Financial expenditure of statins expanded at much faster rate in comparison with overall drug costs. Cardiovascular mortality rates decreased slightly, while maintaining higher level in comparison with some neighbouring countries.

Moving branded statins to lowest copay tier improves patient adherence.

BACKGROUND: Statins are efficacious in reducing the risk of major cardiovascular events for both primary and secondary prevention, yet long-term adherence is poor. Their effectiveness could be compromised in actual practice when patients are not adherent to the treatments. Higher copayments have been shown to be associated with lower adherence to statins. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect on patient adherence of moving branded atorvastatin and rosuvastatin from the second to the first tier by a Medicare Part D plan sponsor. METHODS: Pharmacy claims and eligibility records between July 1, 2009, and July 31, 2011, of Medicare Part D members not receiving the low-income subsidy were analyzed. New atorvastatin and rosuvastatin users in January 2010 (2010 cohort) were compared with those in January 2011 (2011 cohort) after this formulary tier change (tier-reduction group). Adherence was defined by the proportion of days covered (PDC) over 6 months. The impact of tier reduction on adherence was evaluated via logistic regression for binary outcome (PDC≥0.8) and generalized linear regression for continuous PDC by comparing the 2011 cohort with the 2010 cohort, adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. Other statin users (97% on generic statins) were also analyzed, serving as a nontier-reduction comparator group. RESULTS: We identified 12,437 members in the tier-reduction group. Between the 2010 and 2011 cohorts, mean PDC increased from 0.77 to 0.83, and the proportion of members with high adherence increased from 62.0% to 72.9% (both P < 0.001). After regression adjustment, members in the 2011 cohort were more likely to be adherent (OR=1.68; 95% CI=1.55-1.82) and had a 5.9% increase in PDC (P < 0.05). There was no significant increase in adherence observed in the comparator nontier-reduction group. CONCLUSION: Findings from this study suggest that financial incentives may improve medication adherence. Future studies should evaluate whether such formulary strategies improve long-term adherence and patient outcomes.

Evidence based policy decisions through a Bayesian approach: the case of a statin appraisal in The Netherlands.

It has often been suggested that Bayesian statistics is more congenial to the informational needs of policy makers than the standard frequentist methods. In order to illustrate this claim, we use both a Bayesian and a frequentist approach for revisiting a recommendation by the Dutch National Health Insurance Board that for all patients requiring lipid reduction, the cheapest alternative (Simvastatin) should be prescribed. We investigate whether Simvastatin and Atorvastatin, the most commonly used alternative, can be considered equivalent in terms of lipid control for patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Priors were elicited from GPs, cardiologists and internists. A systematic review for studies comparing Simvastatin and Atorvastatin was performed. The data from these studies were combined with the priors in a Bayesian meta-analysis. For comparability a frequentist meta-analysis was also performed. The two approaches lead to similar point estimates and 95% intervals. However, the Bayesian outcomes are easier to understand and interpret, and our Bayesian analysis leads to additional outcomes that would have more direct pertinence for policy makers, and which could help them to assess what the data have to say about the questions that are most relevant to the problems they face.

Budget impact of rosuvastatin initiation in high-risk hyperlipidemic patients from a US managed care perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Statins reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, which, when elevated, represent a significant risk factor for cardiovascular (CV) disease. Hyperlipidemic patients at risk of CV events initiated on simvastatin or atorvastatin may be less likely to meet LDL-C goals (defined in National Cholesterol Education Program guidelines) and more likely to experience CV events than patients initiated on rosuvastatin. A 3-year budget impact model was developed to estimate the clinical impact and cost to a US managed care organization (MCO) with 1 million members of initiating high-risk hyperlipidemic patients on rosuvastatin rather than simvastatin or atorvastatin. METHODS: A total of 1000 adult patients were assumed to initiate statins. The average baseline LDL-C level was 189 mg/dL. In scenario 1, all patients were initiated on simvastatin or atorvastatin and titrated to a higher dose, or switched to atorvastatin (if initiated on simvastatin) or rosuvastatin; in scenario 2, 50% of the 520 high-risk patients were initiated on rosuvastatin. Drug acquisition and administration costs were considered. Product labeling, clinical trial results, national prescription claims data, and published literature were used to populate the model. RESULTS: Over 3 years, 75 additional patients reached their LDL-C goal in scenario 2, compared with scenario 1 (633 vs 558, respectively), at an increased cost of $240,628 ($1,415,516 vs $1,174,888, respectively). The additional per member per month (PMPM) cost of scenario 2 was $0.007. LIMITATIONS: This analysis assumed that statin efficacy is the same in real life as in trials, and used titration and switching patterns not based on patients' goal attainment. However, sensitivity and scenario analyses showed that the model was less sensitive to these parameters than to cost-related parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Initiating high-risk hyperlipidemic patients on rosuvastatin may increase the number of patients reaching LDL-C goal at a relatively modest increase in PMPM cost to an MCO.

Cost effectiveness of targeted high-dose atorvastatin therapy following genotype testing in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Results from the PROVE IT trial suggest that patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated with atorvastatin 80 mg/day (A80) have significantly lower rates of cardiovascular events compared with patients treated with pravastatin 40 mg/day (P40). In a genetic post hoc substudy of the PROVE IT trial, the rate of event reduction was greater in carriers of the Trp719Arg variant in kinesin family member 6 protein (KIF6) than in noncarriers. We assessed the cost effectiveness of testing for the KIF6 variant followed by targeted statin therapy (KIF6 Testing) versus not testing patients (No Test) and treating them with P40 or A80 in the USA from a payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed in which 2-year event rates from PROVE IT were extrapolated over a lifetime horizon. Costs and utilities were derived from published literature. All costs were in 2010 US dollars except the cost of A80, which was in 2012 US dollars because the generic formulation was available in 2012. Expected costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated for each strategy over a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: Lifetime costs were US$31,700; US$37,100 and US$41,300 for No Test P40, KIF6 Testing and No Test A80 strategies, respectively. The No Test A80 strategy was associated with more QALYs (9.71) than the KIF6 Testing (9.69) and No Test P40 (9.57) strategies. No Test A80 had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$232,100 per QALY gained compared with KIF6 Testing. KIF6 Testing had an ICER of US$45,300 per QALY compared with No Test P40. CONCLUSIONS: Testing ACS patients for KIF6 carrier status may be a cost-effective strategy at commonly accepted thresholds. Treating all patients with A80 is more expensive than treating patients on the basis of KIF6 results, but the modest gain in QALYs is achieved at a cost/QALY that is generally considered unacceptable compared with the KIF6 Testing strategy. Compared with treating all patients with P40, the KIF6 Testing strategy had an ICER below US$50,000 per QALY. The conclusions from this study are sensitive to the price of generic A80 and the effect on adherence of knowing KIF6 carrier status. The results were based on a post hoc substudy of the PROVE IT trial, which was not designed to test the effectiveness of KIF6 testing.

Generic atorvastatin, the Belgian statin market and the cost-effectiveness of statin therapy.

PURPOSE: This study examines how the market entry of generic atorvastatin influences the Belgian statin market and the cost-effectiveness of statin therapy. METHODS: Using IMS Health data, the Belgian 2000-2011 statin market was analyzed in terms of total expenditure, annual price of statin treatment, and patient numbers. A simulation analysis projected statin market shares from 2012 to 2015 following market entry of generic atorvastatin. This analysis was based on three scenarios regarding the number of patients taking specific statins. Savings associated with an atorvastatin price reduction of 50-70 % were calculated. A literature review of economic evaluations assessed the cost-effectiveness of generic atorvastatin. RESULTS: Statin expenditure increased from €113 million in 2000 to €285 million in 2011 due to higher expenditure on atorvastatin and rosuvastatin. Although the number of patients treated with simvastatin increased by nearly 800 %, the resulting increase in expenditure was partially offset by price reductions. Atorvastatin is projected to become the dominant product in the Belgian statin market (market share of 47-66 % by 2015). Annual savings would attain €108.6-€153.7 million for a 50 % reduction in the atorvastatin price and €152.0-€215.2 million for a 70 % price reduction. The literature suggests that generic atorvastatin is cost-effective as compared to simvastatin. The limited evidence about the cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin as compared with generic atorvastatin is inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Generic atorvastatin is cost-effective as compared to simvastatin, is projected to become the dominant product in the Belgian statin market and is expected to generate substantial savings to health care payers.

Clinical consequences following regulatory changes in respect to reimbursement of statins cost by the Icelandic Social Insurance Administration.

INTRODUCTION: On 1 March 2009, a new reimbursement system was introduced by the Ministry of Health of Iceland regarding drugs to treat hyperlipidaemia. The Social Insurance Administration was only authorised to reimburse 10 and 20 mg simvastatin unless patients were eligible to receive a medical card from the Social Insurance Administration. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of this reimbursement regulation on the clinical outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients that received hyperlipidaemia treatment and were admitted to the cardiac ward were enrolled. The criteria were that the patients had been admitted 1 year prior to the regulation change and were using other statins than simvastatin. RESULTS: Out of 233 eligible patients 170 (73%) reached the treatment goal before the switch. After the switch, only 126 (54%) reached their goal (p<0.05). Total cholesterol was found to be increased after the switch by a mean of 0.48 mmol/l (range 3.90-5.53 mmol/l, p<0.001). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol increased by a mean of 0.48 mmol/l (range 1.62-3.11, p<0.001). The level of triglycerides did not change significantly. Before the introduction of the new regulations, 73% of subjects were well controlled, but after 1 March 2009, this figure dropped to 46% (37% decrease). CONCLUSIONS: In order to lower costs for subsidising drugs, a switch to simvastatin from other cholesterol-lowering drugs was implemented (by the Ministry of Health of Iceland). The result was a significant and unwanted increase in cholesterol levels among patients with heart disease. The reason seems to be inaccurate prescriptions due to lack of competence among physicians and pharmacists. The use of "one drug fits all" does not comply here.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of rosuvastatin vs generic atorvastatin in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to carry out a long-term cost-effectiveness analysis of rosuvastatin compared with generic atorvastatin in the treatment of patients at high cardiovascular (CV) risk (≥ 5% Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation [SCORE]) and patients with prior cardiovascular disease (CVD) in Spain. METHODS: The efficacy data from the Statin Therapies for Elevated Lipid Levels compared Across doses to Rosuvastatin (STELLAR) study were used to simulate achievement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol targets with different doses of rosuvastatin and generic atorvastatin for an initial period of 1 year. A Markov model was used to estimate the number of CV complications, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and healthcare costs (lipid-lowering treatment and CV events) for up to 20 years after initial treatment. The analysis was carried out from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System, with costs (in year 2010 euros) and effects being discounted at 3% per year. RESULTS: Compared with generic atorvastatin, rosuvastatin was cost-effective (cost per QALY gained of less than €30,000) for the primary prevention of CV events in high-risk patients in most sub-groups analyzed. In patients with prior CVD, rosuvastatin was cost-effective in all sub-groups of men and most sub-groups of women. Key limitations of this study were the need to extrapolate data from a single trial to long-term modeled outcomes and the absence of other treatment options in the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of dyslipidemic patients with high CV risk, rosuvastatin is more effective than generic atorvastatin in terms of survival and quality-of-life adjusted survival, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios within the range generally used in Spain, in most sub-populations defined by various combinations of CV risk factors.

Multiple initiatives continue to enhance the prescribing efficiency for the proton pump inhibitors and statins in Scotland.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple and intensive demand measures in Scotland have appreciably enhanced prescribing efficiency for proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and statins in 2007 versus 2001. Statin utilization enhanced by measures to increase doses prescribed, including the Quality and Outcome Framework (QoF). AIMS: Ascertain whether the plethora of measures continue to enhance prescribing efficiency for PPIs and statins. Second, assess whether the combined impact of the QoF targets and guidance enhances the prescribing of higher strength statins, mirroring the situation in England. METHOD: PPI and statin utilization measured in terms of defined daily doses (DDDs) and DDDs per 1000 inhabitants per day (2010 DDDs) between 2001 and 2010, number and strength of simvastatin and atorvastatin tablets dispensed, and reimbursed expenditure per DDD and 1000 inhabitants per year. RESULTS: Expenditure per DDD for generic omeprazole in 2010 was 91% below the 2001 originator price, leading to expenditure per 1000 inhabitants for PPIs in 2010 to be 56% below 2001 despite a threefold increase in utilization. Expenditure per DDD for generic simvastatin in 2010 was 97% below the 2002 originator price. Expenditure per 1000 inhabitants for statins in 2010 only increased by 7% compared with 2001 despite a 6.2-fold increase in utilization. Utilization of higher strength statins has increased in recent years, with higher strength simvastatin (40 and 80 mg) accounting for 85% of total statins (DDD basis) in 2010. CONCLUSION: Reforms appear to be working to further enhance prescribing efficiency. Utilization of higher strength statins in recent years should further improve outcomes.

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.

Estimation of financial burden due to oversupply of medications for chronic diseases.

Given the potential of financial burden due to oversupply of medications for chronic diseases, this study aims to determine the prevalence of oversupply and to estimate the magnitude of financial loss in Thailand. Electronic patient database in a university-affiliated hospital in Thailand was used. Based on the utilization of top 5 high drug expenditure in 2005, the prevalence and the financial loss of oversupply (medication possession ratio [MPR] >1.00) were estimated. In total, 1893 patients were included in this study. The average age was 65.2 years and the majority were female (56%). The prevalence of oversupply ranged from 23.2% to 62.8%, whereas the annual financial loss ranged from US $4108 to US $10 517. The total amount of loss was US $32 903 or 3.77% of total medication costs. In summary, because of the high prevalence and associated high financial loss, oversupply of medication is a significant financial burden on hospitals and society.