Cost-effectiveness of statins

Current Opinion in Lipidology

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 351-356

  Reckless, John P D ^a  

^a ROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTILIPEMIC AGENT; ATORVASTATIN; CERIVASTATIN; FLUINDOSTATIN; GEMFIBROZIL; MEVINOLIN; PRAVASTATIN; SIMVASTATIN; STATIN;

CLINICAL TRIAL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; DRUG EFFICACY; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE; META ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RISK FACTOR;

ANTILIPEMIC AGENTS; CLINICAL TRIALS; CORONARY DISEASE; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 0033859707     PISSN: 09579672     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00041433-200008000-00002     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. 1 American Heart Association. 1998 Heart and Stroke Statistical Update. Dallas, Texas: American Heart Association; 1998.
2. 2 Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Medical care spending: United States. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1994; 43:581-586.
3. 3 Hay JW, Yu WM, Ashraf T. Pharmacoeconomics of lipid-lowering agents for primary and secondary prevention of coronary artery disease. PharmacoEconomics 1999; 15:47-74. These authors discuss the clinical and outcome evidence for resins, nicotinic acid, fibrates and statins in the context of their potential cost-effectiveness. They question evidence for differential effects of each statin, consider cost-effectiveness, and note that the evidence base is least for the lower cost agents. Cost-effectiveness ratios for particular drugs and doses reflect USA drug acquisition costs.
4. 4 Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study. Lancet 1994; 344:1383-1389.
5. 5 Sack FM, Pfeffer MA, Moye LA, et al. The effect of pravastatin on coronary events after myocardial infarction in patients with average cholesterol levels. N Engl J Med 1996; 335:1001-1009.
6. 6 The Long-term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease (LIPID) Study Group. Prevention of cardiovascular events and death with pravastatin in patients with coronary disease and a broad range of initial cholesterol levels. N Engl J Med 1998; 339:1349-1357.
7. 7 Shepherd J, Cobbe SM, Ford I, et al. Prevention of coronary heart disease with pravastatin in men with hypercholesterolaemia. N Engl J Med 1995; 333:1301-1307.
8. 8 Downs JR, Clearfield M, Weiss S, et al. (and AFCAPS/TexCAPS Research Group). Primary prevention of acute coronary events with lovastatin in men and women with average cholesterol levels: results of AFCAPS/TexCAPS. JAMA 1998; 279:1615-1622.
9. 9 Watts GF, Lewis B, Brunt JN, et al. Effects on coronary heart disease of lipid-lowering diet, or diet plus cholestyramine, in the St. Thomas' Atherosclerosis Regression Study (STARS). Lancet 1992; 339:563-569.
10. 10 Frick MH, Elo O, Haapa K, et al. Primary prevention trial with gemfibrozil in middle-aged men with dyslipidaemia. Safety of treatment, changes in risk factors and incidence of coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med 1987; 317:1237-1245.
11. 11 Rubins HB, Robins SJ, Collins D, et al. Gemfibrozil for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in men with low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. N Engl J Med 1999; 341:410-418.
12. 12 Lipid Research Clinics Program. The lipid research clinical coronary primary prevention trials results. JAMA 1984; 51:351-374.
13. 13 Buchwald H, Varco RL, Matts JP, et al. Effect of partial ileal bypass surgery on mortality and morbidity from coronary heart disease in patients with hypercholesterolaemia. N Engl J Med 1990; 323:946-966.
14. 14 Jonsson B, Johannesson M, Kjekshus J, et al., for the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. Cost-effectiveness of cholesterol lowering: results from the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Eur Heart J 1996; 17:1001-1007.
15. 15 Johannesson M, Jonsson B, Kjekshus J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of Simvastatin treatment to lower cholesterol levels in patients with coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med 1997; 336:332-336.
16. 16 Pedersen TR, Kjekshus J, Berg K, et al. Cholesterol lowering and the use of health-care resources: results of the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study. Circulation 1996; 93:1796-1802.
17. 17 Reckless JPD. The 4S study and its pharmacoeconomic implications. PharmacoEconomics 1996; 9:101-105.
18. 18 Department of Health (UK). National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease: modern standards and service models. London: Department of Health; 2000. This report represents a major planning initiative for the development of cardiovascular services and resources. It recognizes the need for statin treatment in high-risk groups.
19. 19 Reckless JPD. Cost-benefit analysis of lipid-lowering management. In: Lipoproteins in health and disease. Betteridge DJ, Illingworth DR, Shepherd J (editors). London: Arnold; 1999. pp. 1231-1254.
20. 20 Ashraf T, Hay JW, Pitt B, et al. Cost-effectiveness of pravastatin in secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Am J Cardiol 1996; 78:409-414.
21. 21 Caro J, Klittich W, McGurie A, et al. The West of Scotland coronary prevention study: economic benefit analysis of primary prevention with pravastatin. Br Med J 1997; 315:1577-1584.
22. 22 West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Group. West of Scotland coronary prevention study: identification of high risk groups and comparison with other cardiovascular intervention trials. Lancet 1996; 348:1339-1342.
23. 23 Goldman L, Weinstein MC, Goldman PA, Williams LW. Cost-effectiveness of HMG CoA reductase inhibition for primary and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. JAMA 1991; 265:1145-1151.
24. 24 Pickin DM, McCabe CJ, Ramsey LE, et al. Cost-effectiveness of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin) treatment related to the risk of coronary heart disease and cost of drug treatment. Heart 1999; 82:325-332. Using statin trial outcome data and a cohort life table, the authors calculated the cost per life year gained at various absolute levels of CHD risk from 1.5% through 2% and 3% to 4.5% per annum, giving costs of £12500, £10700, £8200 and £5100. Costs were calculated as lifetime interventions using trial doses of statins. These are cost-effective interventions, and sensitivity analyses were most sensitive to drug acquisition costs.
25. 25 Ebrahim S, Davey Smith G, McCabe C, et al. What role for statins? A review and economic model. NHS R&D HTA Programme, Health Technology Assessment 1999; V3 (19):1-91. The Health Technology Assessment Programme identified the economic positioning of statins as an important issue in the UK and funded this report. Cost of CHD risk reduction was calculated as between £5400 and £13300 per life year gained for primary prevention risk levels, and lower at £3800-£9300 for secondary prevention. The authors calculated that these costs could be reduced further by up to 60% by using low-cost statins, but this precedes UK price reductions for some doses of some statins. Sensitivity analyses were performed, and comparison with other treatments are given.
26. 26 Best L, Stevens A, Colin-Jones D. Rapid and responsive health technology assessment: the development and evaluation process in the South and West region of England. J Clin Effect 1997; 2:51-56.
27. 27 Stevens A, Colin-Jones D, Gabbay J. 'Quick and clean': authoritative health technology assessment for local health care contracting. Health Trends 1995; 27:37-42.
28. 28 Grover SA, Coupal L, Paquet S, Zowall H. Cost-effectiveness of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159:593-600.
29. 29 MacNeil P. Economic aspects of hypercholesterolaemia treatment with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors: a review of recent developments. Can J Cardiol 1998; 14:14A-16A.
30. 30 Morris S, Godber E. Choice of cost-effectiveness measures in the economic evaluation of cholesterol-modifying pharmacotherapy. PharmacoEconomics 1999; 16:193-205. This paper provides a discussion of different outcome measures for health economic assessments, modelled on CHD primary prevention in Canada with different statins. Lower doses were more cost-effective, and the most cost-effective agent depended on drug cost and potency.
31. 31 McAlister FA, Taylor L, Teo KK, et al. The treatment and prevention of coronary heart disease in Canada: do older patients receive efficacious therapies? J Am Geriatr Soc 1999; 47:811-818.
32. 32 Farmer JA. Economic implications of lipid-lowering trials: current considerations in selecting a statin. Am J Cardiol 1998; 82:26M-31M.
33. 33 Huse DM, Russell MW, Miller JD, et al. Cost-effectiveness of statins. Am J Cardiol 1998; 82:1357-1363.
34. 34 Jacobson TA, Schein JR, Williamson A, Ballantyne CM. Maximising the cost-effectiveness of lipid-lowering therapy. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158:1977-1989.
35. 35 Krobot KJ, Wenke K, Reichart B. Simvastatin after orthotopic heart transplantation: costs and consequences. PharmacoEconomics 1999; 15:279-289. Seventy-two German patients (mean age 48 years) who had received a heart transplant and who were receiving cyclosporin, azathioprine and prednisolone were randomized (non-blind) to dietary intervention with or without simvastatin (8.1 mg/day) for 4 years. Simvastatin treatment led to 2.27 years extra life-years (0.64 within trial), at 1835DM (US$1050) per life-year gained, and improved the cost-effectiveness of heart transplantation.
36. 36 Szucs TD. Pharmaco-economic aspects of lipid-lowering therapy: is it worth the price? Eur Heart J 1998; 19:M22-M28.
37. 37 Standing Medical Advisory Committee. The use of statins. London: Department of Health; 1997.
38. 38 Bala MV, Mauskopf JA, Wood LL. Willingness to pay as a measure of health benefits. PharmacoEconomics 1999; 15:9-18. Cost-benefit analysis suffers difficulties in valuing different health benefits, and this paper examines the viewpoint of the consumer's willingness to pay as an evaluation method.
39. 39 Anderson KV, Odell PM, Wilson PWF, Kannel WB. Cardiovascular disease risk profiles. Am Heart J 1991; 121:293-298.
40. 40 Ramachandran S, French JM, Vanderpump MPJ, et al. Using the Framingham model to predict heart disease in the United Kingdom: retrospective study. Br Med J 2000; 320:676-677.
41. 41 Pyorala K, De Backer G, Graham I, et al. Prevention of coronary heart disease in clinical practice: recommendations of the Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology, European Atherosclerosis Society and European Society of Hypertension. Atherosclerosis 1994; 110:121-161.
42. 42 Core Services Committee. Guidelines for the management of mildly raised blood pressure in New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health; 1995.
43. 43 British Cardiac Society, British Hyperlipidaemia Association, British Hypertension Society, British Diabetic Association. Joint British recommendations on prevention of coronary heart disease in clinical practice. Heart 1998; 80(Suppl 2):S1-S29.
44. 44 Jackson R. Updated New Zealand cardiovascular disease risk-benefit prediction guide. Br Med J 2000; 320:709-710. In order to assess potential cost-effectiveness of intervention with statins or antihypertensive therapy, it is important to be able to accurately calculate likely annual CHD risk for that individual. The updated New Zealand tables provide a simple quantitative method for this, updating previous charts. They calculate 5-year risks from below 2.5% to greater than 30% (0.5-6%/year). The charts also provide information on numbers needed to treat.
45. 45 British Cardiac Society, British Hyperlipidaemia Association, British Hypertension Society, British Diabetic Association. Joint British recommendations on prevention of coronary heart disease in clinical practice: summary. Br Med J 2000; 320:705-708. As for the New Zealand charts, these are updated joint British guidelines. They consider 10-year CHD risk rather than 5-year, and over a more limited risk range from below 15% to greater than 30% (<1.5% to >3.0%/year). They consider systolic blood pressure rather than systolic plus diastolic levels. However, they allow consideration of blood pressure and of cholesterol: HDL ratio as continuous variables rather than in discrete bands.
46. 46 Wallis EJ, Ramsay LE, Haq IU, et al. Coronary and cardiovascular risk estimation for primary prevention: validation of a new Sheffield table in the 1995 Scottish health survey population. Br Med J 2000; 320:671-676. The updated Sheffield charts now provide two discrete 10-year CHD risk levels of 15% and 30% (1.5% and 3% p.a.), but do not allow easy interpolation. Hypertension is still considered as a dichotomous variable, but HDL is now included as cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio.
47. 47 Jackson R. Guidelines on preventing cardiovascular disease in clinical practice [Editorial]. Br Med J 2000; 320:659-661. The 11 March 2000 issue of the British Medical Journal is themed on cardiovascular risk, and this editorial considers the need to calculate and consider absolute CHD. With treatment this translates to risk reduction, and the importance to target high-risk patients is emphasized.
48. 48 Isles CG, Ritchie LD, Murchie P, Norrie J. Risk assessment in primary prevention of coronary heart disease: randomised comparison of three scoring systems. Br Med J 2000; 320:690-691. Doctors and nurses in 37 Scottish primary care teams assessed risk in 12 case histories, from one of three risk charts that were randomly allocated. New Zealand and joint British charts performed equally well, and were both more accurate than and were preferred to the revised Sheffield chart.
49. 49 Montgomery AA, Fahey T, Peters TJ, et al. Evaluation of computer based clinical decision support system and risk chart for management of hypertension in primary care: randomised controlled trial. Br Med J 2000; 320:686-690. In hypertension, using New Zealand charts compared with usual care led to better blood pressure control through increased prescribing, but the addition of simple computer-based decision support did not result in increased benefit.
50. 50 Leidy NK, Rentz AM, Zyczynski TM. Evaluating health-related quality-of-life outcomes in patients with congestive cardiac failure. A review of recent randomised controlled trials. PharmacoEconomics 1999; 15:19-46. A useful review of quality of life outcomes in congestive cardiac failure management is provided.
51. 51 Ramachandran S, French JM, Vanderpump MPJ, et al. Should treatment recommendations for lipid lowering drugs be based on absolute coronary risk or risk reduction? Br Med J 2000; 320:677-679. Is it better to treat with lipid-lowering agents when absolute risk is greater than 3%/year, or when absolute risk reduction is greater than 4.45%, or both? Risk may be in excess of 3%/year, but treatments other than lipid-lowering may be best. In contrast, younger individuals with risk below 3%/year may obtain substantial benefit from lipid-lowering. However, the statin RCTs suggest that absolute benefit of treatment is proportional to prior risk.