The rising cost of commonly used emergency department medications (2006-15).

OBJECTIVE: We determine how aggregate costs have changed for commonly used emergency department (ED) medications, and assess drivers of cost increases. METHODS: Using the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), we identified the top 150 ED medications administered and prescribed at discharge in 2015. We used average wholesale prices (AWP) for each year from 2006 to 15 from the Red Book (Truven Health Analytics Inc.). Average wholesale price per patient (AWPP) was calculated by dividing AWP by drug uses. This was then multiplied by the total drug administrations or prescriptions to estimate the total cost in a given the year. All prices were converted to 2015 dollars. RESULTS: Aggregate costs of drugs administered in the ED increased from $688.7 million in 2006 to $882.4 million in 2015. For discharge prescriptions, aggregate costs increased from $2.031 billion in 2006 to $4.572 billion in 2015. AWPP for drugs administered in the ED in 2015 was 14.5% higher than in 2006 and 24.3% higher at discharge. The largest absolute increase in AWPP for drugs administered was for glucagon, which increased from $111 in 2006 to $235 in 2015. The largest AWPP increase at discharge was for epinephrine auto-injector, which increased from $124 in 2006 and to $481 in 2015. CONCLUSION: Over the course of the study period, the aggregate costs of the most common medications administered in the ED increased by 28% while the costs of medications prescribed at discharge increased 125%.

Statins for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention in people living with HIV in Thailand: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

INTRODUCTION: People living with HIV (PLHIV) have an elevated risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared to their HIV-negative peers. Expanding statin use may help alleviate this burden. However, the choice of statin in the context of antiretroviral therapy is challenging. Pravastatin and pitavastatin improve cholesterol levels in PLHIV without interacting substantially with antiretroviral therapy. They are also more expensive than most statins. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pravastatin and pitavastatin for the primary prevention of CVD among PLHIV in Thailand who are not currently using lipid-lowering therapy. METHODS: We developed a discrete-state microsimulation model that randomly selected (with replacement) individuals from the TREAT Asia HIV Observational Database cohort who were aged 40 to 75 years, receiving antiretroviral therapy in Thailand, and not using lipid-lowering therapy. The model simulated each individual's probability of experiencing CVD. We evaluated: (1) treating no one with statins; (2) treating everyone with pravastatin 20mg/day (drug cost 7568 Thai Baht ($US243)/year) and (3) treating everyone with pitavastatin 2 mg/day (drug cost 8182 Baht ($US263)/year). Direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assigned in annual cycles over a 20-year time horizon and discounted at 3% per year. We assumed the Thai healthcare sector perspective. RESULTS: Pravastatin was estimated to be less effective and less cost-effective than pitavastatin and was therefore dominated (extended) by pitavastatin. Patients receiving pitavastatin accumulated 0.042 additional QALYs compared with those not using a statin, at an extra cost of 96,442 Baht ($US3095), giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 2,300,000 Baht ($US73,812)/QALY gained. These findings were sensitive to statin costs and statin efficacy, pill burden, and targeting of PLHIV based on CVD risk. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 160,000 Baht ($US5135)/QALY gained, we estimated that pravastatin would become cost-effective at an annual cost of 415 Baht ($US13.30)/year and pitavastatin would become cost-effective at an annual cost of 600 Baht ($US19.30)/year. CONCLUSIONS: Neither pravastatin nor pitavastatin were projected to be cost-effective for the primary prevention of CVD among PLHIV in Thailand who are not currently using lipid-lowering therapy. We do not recommend expanding current use of these drugs among PLHIV in Thailand without substantial price reduction.

Long-term impact on healthcare resource utilization of statin treatment, and its cost effectiveness in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a record linkage study.

AIMS: To assess the impact on healthcare resource utilization, costs, and quality of life over 15 years from 5 years of statin use in men without a history of myocardial infarction in the West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study (WOSCOPS). METHODS: Six thousand five hundred and ninety-five participants aged 45-54 years were randomized to 5 years treatment with pravastatin (40 mg) or placebo. Linkage to routinely collected health records extended follow-up for secondary healthcare resource utilization to 15 years. The following new results are reported: cause-specific first and recurrent cardiovascular hospital admissions including myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, coronary revascularization and angiography; non-cardiovascular hospitalization; days in hospital; quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); costs of pravastatin treatment, treatment safety monitoring, and hospital admissions. RESULTS: Five years treatment of 1000 patients with pravastatin (40 mg/day) saved the NHS £710 000 (P < 0.001), including the cost of pravastatin and lipid and safety monitoring, and gained 136 QALYs (P = 0.017) over the 15-year period. Benefits per 1000 subjects, attributable to prevention of cardiovascular events, included 163 fewer admissions and a saving of 1836 days in hospital, with fewer admissions for myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure and coronary revascularization. There was no excess in non-cardiovascular admissions or costs (or in admissions associated with diabetes or its complications) and no evidence of heterogeneity of effect over sub-groups defined by baseline cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSION: Five years' primary prevention treatment of middle-aged men with a statin significantly reduces healthcare resource utilization, is cost saving, and increases QALYs. Treatment of even younger, lower risk individuals is likely to be cost-effective.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of statins for primary cardiovascular prevention in chronic kidney disease.

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of statins for primary prevention of myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). BACKGROUND: Patients with CKD have an elevated risk of MI and stroke. Although HMG Co-A reductase inhibitors ("statins") may prevent cardiovascular events in patients with non­dialysis-requiring CKD, adverse drug effects and competing risks could materially influence net effects and clinical decision-making. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic model of CKD and cardiovascular disease (CVD) to determine the cost-effectiveness of low-cost generic statins for primary CVD prevention in men and women with hypertension and mild-to-moderate CKD. Outcomes included MI and stroke rates, discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and lifetime costs (2010 USD), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: For 65-year-old men with moderate hypertension and mild-to-moderate CKD, statins reduced the combined rate of MI and stroke, yielded 0.10 QALYs, and increased costs by $1,800 ($18,000 per QALY gained). For patients with lower baseline cardiovascular risks, health and economic benefits were smaller; for 65-year-old women, statins yielded 0.06 QALYs and increased costs by $1,900 ($33,400 per QALY gained). Results were sensitive to rates of rhabdomyolysis and drug costs. Statins are less cost-effective when obtained at average retail prices, particularly in patients at lower CVD risk. CONCLUSIONS: Although statins reduce absolute CVD risk in patients with CKD, the increased risk of rhabdomyolysis, and competing risks associated with progressive CKD, partly offset these gains. Low-cost generic statins appear cost-effective for primary prevention of CVD in patients with mild-to-moderate CKD and hypertension.

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.

[Pharmaco-economic optimization of cholesterol-lowering treatment with statins]. / Optimización fármaco-económica del tratamiento de la hipercolesterolemia con estatinas.

Current guidelines for the management of hypercholesterolemia identify LDL cholesterol (LDL-c) reduction as the primary therapeutic target and have highlighted the need to use statins to achieve it. There are six statins with four different doses and with different power-reducing LDL-c. By adding ezetimibe, there are 48 therapeutic possibilities. This extensive offer provides pharmaceutical treatment, but it is difficult to choose the most cost-effective statin because it is very difficult to remember all the powers and costs of treatment options. This paper offers a method to prioritize the best cost-effective lipid lowering, and chooses the cheapest statin that achieves the desired therapeutic goal of LDL-c.

Acceptable incremental cost effectiveness ratio for use of new drugs, cases in statin therapies.

As it is an urgent issue to contain increasing healthcare expenditures, unlimited reimbursement of pharmaceuticals continues to be controversial. The objective of this study is to identify acceptable incremental cost effectiveness ratios between new and conventional therapies. Clinical study data for five statin therapies were used to indicate treatment effectiveness and incremental costs were indicated by price premiums at price listing. The incremental cost effectiveness ratios to pravastatin were 0 yen/patient with response, 1,475.1 yen/patient with response, 3,033.3 yen/patient with response, and 3,032.4 yen/patient with response. By conducting further analyses in various pharmaceuticals and categorizing acceptable incremental cost effectiveness ratios based on the disease severity and expected level of improvement in disease condition, drug prices that reflect the value of new pharmaceuticals and that are reasonable to be reimbursed can be suggested.

Does higher usage of low-cost statins correlate with a poorer achievement in cholesterol quality markers for secondary prevention?

There is pressure on primary care trusts, and therefore on GPs, to reach specific levels of use of low-cost statins as a proportion of total statin prescribing. This simple study looks at some markers of the quality of the results achieved. A correlation is found between a higher proportion of low-cost statin prescribing and lower achievement raising questions as to whether financial savings may be offset by poorer results.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin from a Canadian health system perspective.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the most commonly prescribed doses of rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin for managing various lipid parameters in patients with hypercholesterolemia over a 1-year time horizon from a Canadian health care perspective. METHODS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated for branded rosuvastatin compared with branded atorvastatin, generic simvastatin, and generic pravastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia in terms of percent reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and total cholesterol (TC)/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) ratio, as well as in TC, HDL-C, triglycerides (TG), apolipoprotein (Apo) B, the ApoB/ApoA-I ratio, and attainment of the Canadian LDL-C goal. The pharmacoeconomic model was constructed for a 1-year time horizon using efficacy data from a randomized, open-label trial including 2268 adults and the wholesale acquisition costs of branded rosuvastatin and atorvastatin and generic simvastatin and pravastatin in British Columbia. RESULTS: The most commonly prescribed doses of each of the 4 statins in British Columbia were as follows: rosuvastatin 10 mg (75.8% of all rosuvastatin doses); atorvastatin 10 and 20 mg (46.4% and 35.3%, respectively, of all atorvastatin doses); simvastatin 20 and 40 mg (42.5% and 31.8%, respectively, of all simvastatin doses); and pravastatin 20 and 40 mg (55.0% and 34.1%, respectively, of all pravastatin doses). Rosuvastatin 10 mg was dominant (ie, was more effective at a lower cost) relative to atorvastatin 10 and 20 mg, simvastatin 20 and 40 mg, and pravastatin 40 mg in terms of reductions in LDL-C, TC/ HDL-C ratio, TC, ApoB, and ApoB/ApoA-I ratio, increases in HDL-C, and attainment of the LDL-C goal. Compared with pravastatin 20 mg, the ICER per percent reduction in LDL-C, TC/HDL-C ratio, TC, TG, ApoB, or ApoB/ApoA-I or increase in HDL-C ranged from $3.89 to $26.07; the value for 1 additional patient achieving the LDL-C goal was $419.75. When the statin doses were aggregated based on the Canadian statin-utilization pattern, rosuvastatin was dominant relative to atorvastatin on all effectiveness measures evaluated. When rosuvastatin was compared with generic simvastatin and pravastatin, the annual costs for 1 additional patient achieving the LDL-C goal were $144.51 and $373.91, respectively. Based on the sensitivity analysis, rosuvastatin was associated with the highest probability of cost-effectiveness compared with the other statins over a broad range of monetary values per unit of clinical effect. CONCLUSION: When percent changes in lipid parameters and rates of LDL-C goal attainment were considered in patients with hypercholesterolemia in British Columbia, rosuvastatin 10 mg was more cost-effective than the most frequently used doses of atorvastatin (10 and 20 mg), generic simvastatin (20 and 40 mg), and generic pravastatin (20 and 40 mg).

Statin's cost-effectiveness: a Canadian analysis of commonly prescribed generic and brand name statins.

BACKGROUND: Generic statins may be considered as a compelling treatment option for managing dyslipidemia, due to their reduced cost, compared to their brand name equivalent. However, further assessment is needed to determine whether using a particular generic statin is more cost-effective relative to other brand-name statins. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of the most commonly prescribed statins in Canada with respect to 1) lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level (LDL-C) and 2) achieving National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) LDL-C goal. METHODS: The study was conducted from the perspective of Canadian payers over a 1-year time horizon. Clinical data were obtained from the STELLAR trial (n=2268) in which patients received fixed doses of rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, simvastatin and pravastatin. Brand and generic drug costs were based on wholesale acquisition costs. Relative cost-effectiveness was assessed using the net monetary benefit approach (NMB), which allows probabilistic cost-effectiveness comparison of the various treatment options over a wide range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) values for a unit of clinical effect. RESULTS: Rosuvastatin 10mg was the most cost-effective statin over the largest range of WTP values. Pravastatin 10mg was cost-effective when the clinical outcomes had little or no monetary value. Rosuvastatin 20 mg was more cost-effective at the highest end of the WTP spectrum. CONCLUSION: The result of this analysis provides evidence that prescribing generic statins in Canada does not necessarily translate into the most cost-effective option for treating dyslipidemia; especially as the monetary value of 1% decrease in LDL-C or patients achieving NCEP ATP III target increases.

[Statin therapy: cost-effectiveness and evaluation of evidence as criterium for improving expenditure within the National Health Program]. / Terapia medica con le statine: valutazione costo/efficacia e della migliore evidenza clinica per razionalizzare la spesa del Servizio Sanitario Nazionale.

The choice is difficult in medicine. But individual physicians and patients must make medical decisions rather than organizations or pharmaceutical companies. The choice concerns the transparency of the decision-making process (evidence based medicine), and mistrust of the methods used in cost-effectiveness analysis. Medicare's policy of paying for any medical advance that has positive benefits, regardless of its costs, is un-sustainable. Cost-effectiveness information may assume a more important role in future coverage decisions with regard to outpatient prescription drugs, but at the private level, rather than at the national one. Functional equivalence of drugs reflects a reference-pricing technique applied to a therapeutic category--reimbursement for compounds of similar efficacy within a therapeutic class set to the lowest-priced product in the class. Essentially, a standard of functional equivalence applies a cost-effectiveness principle: assuming that alternative interventions are equivalent, one should not pay more for one of them.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapy with pravastatin in patients with previous acute coronary syndromes aged 65 to 74 years compared with younger patients: results from the LIPID study.

BACKGROUND: We compared cost-effectiveness of pravastatin in a placebo-controlled trial in 5500 younger (31-64 years) and 3514 older patients (65-74 years) with previous acute coronary syndromes. METHODS: Hospitalizations and long-term medication within the 6 years of the trial were estimated in all patients . Drug dosage, nursing home, and ambulatory care costs were estimated from substudies. Incremental costs per life saved of pravastatin relative to placebo were estimated from treatment effects and resource use. RESULTS: Over 6 years, pravastatin reduced all-cause mortality by 4.3% in the older patients and by 2.3% in the younger patients. Older patients assigned pravastatin had marginally lower cost of pravastatin and other medication over 6 years (A dollar 4442 vs A dollar 4637), but greater cost offsets (A dollar 2061 vs A dollar 897) from lower rates of hospitalizations. The incremental cost per life saved with pravastatin was A dollar 55500 in the old and A dollar 167200 in the young. Assuming no treatment effect beyond the study period, the life expectancy to age 82 years of additional survivors was 9.1 years in the older and 17.3 years in the younger. Estimated additional life-years saved from pravastatin therapy were 0.39 years for older and 0.40 years for younger patients. Incremental costs per life-year saved were A dollar 7581 in the older and A dollar 14944 in the younger, if discounted at 5% per annum. CONCLUSIONS: Pravastatin therapy was more cost-effective among older than younger patients, because of their higher baseline risk and greater cost offsets, despite their shorter life expectancy.

Cost-effectiveness of pravastatin for primary prevention of coronary artery disease in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: This analysis was designed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of pravastatin for the primary prevention of coronary heart disease in Japan. METHODS: A state-transition model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of pravastatin therapy with no intervention. Hypothetical cohorts were assumed according to patients' age, sex, initial serum total cholesterol (TC) levels, and other cardiac risk factors. For the baseline analysis, 20 mg/day of pravastatin was used for people aged 60 years who had an initial TC level of 240 mg/dl. Epidemiological, clinical, and economic data were collected from published articles. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in yen per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were calculated. To confirm the effects of different variables, a sensitivity analysis was performed. The assumptions of our model were in accordance with the Japan Atherosclerosis Society Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular disease. RESULTS: ICERs were respectively 44 million and 76 million yen/QALY for men and women at low cardiac risk (i.e., the risks of hypercholesterolemia and old age) and 7.5 million and 4.3 million yen/QALY for those at high cardiac risk (i.e., the risks of hypercholesterolemia, old age, cigarette smoking, hypertension, and hyperglycemia). CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of pravastatin therapy differs substantially according to the level of cardiac risk. At present, pravastatin therapy is not cost-effective for persons at low cardiac risk.

Cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin in treating patients to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals compared with atorvastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin (a US Analysis of the STELLAR Trial).

Statin therapy decreases low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and the risk of coronary heart disease but has a considerable short-term effect on health care budgets. The cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin (Crestor) has been compared with those of atorvastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin in lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and achieving National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of health care payers in the United States. Clinical data were obtained from the Statin Therapies for Elevated Lipid Levels Compared Across Doses to Rosuvastatin (STELLAR) trial. Drug costs were based on wholesale acquisition costs. Cost effectiveness was assessed with the net monetary benefit approach and a 1-year time horizon. Rosuvastatin at 10 mg, the recommended starting dose, was the most cost-effective statin over a large range of "willingness-to-pay" values for a unit of clinical effect (i.e., a 1% decrease in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol or a patient achieving the goal).