Limits...
Cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin in comparison with generic atorvastatin and simvastatin in a Swedish population at high risk of cardiovascular events.

Gandhi SK, Jensen MM, Fox KM, Smolen L, Olsson AG, Paulsson T - Clinicoecon Outcomes Res (2012)

Bottom Line: To assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin therapy compared with generic simvastatin and generic atorvastatin in reducing the incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality in a Swedish population with Framingham risk ≥20%.Probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of SEK500,000/QALY, rosuvastatin 20 mg would be cost-effective for approximately 75%-85% of simulations relative to atorvastatin or simvastatin 40 mg.Rosuvastatin 20 mg is cost-effective over a lifetime horizon compared with generic simvastatin or atorvastatin 40 mg in patients at high cardiovascular risk in Sweden.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: AstraZeneca LP, Wilmington, DE, USA.

ABSTRACT

Background: To assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin therapy compared with generic simvastatin and generic atorvastatin in reducing the incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality in a Swedish population with Framingham risk ≥20%.

Methods: A PROBABILISTIC MONTE CARLO SIMULATION MODEL BASED ON DATA FROM JUPITER (THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE USE OF STATINS IN PREVENTION: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin) was used to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin 20 mg daily versus simvastatin or atorvastatin 40 mg for the prevention of cardiovascular death and morbidity. The three- stage model included cardiovascular event prevention simulating the 4 years of JUPITER, initial prevention beyond the trial, and subsequent cardiovascular event prevention. A Swedish health care payer perspective (direct costs only) was modeled for a lifetime horizon, with 2008/2009 as the costing period. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with rosuvastatin 20 mg over simvastatin or atorvastatin 40 mg ranged from SEK88,113 (rosuvastatin 20 mg versus simvastatin 40 mg; Framingham risk ≥30%; net avoidance of 34 events/1000 patients) to SEK497,542 (versus atorvastatin 40 mg: Framingham risk ≥20%; net avoidance of 11 events/1000 patients) over a lifetime horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of SEK500,000/QALY, rosuvastatin 20 mg would be cost-effective for approximately 75%-85% of simulations relative to atorvastatin or simvastatin 40 mg. Sensitivity analyses indicated the findings to be robust.

Conclusion: Rosuvastatin 20 mg is cost-effective over a lifetime horizon compared with generic simvastatin or atorvastatin 40 mg in patients at high cardiovascular risk in Sweden.

No MeSH data available.


Model cohort simulation.Abbreviations: ICER, incremental cost effectiveness ratio; LYs, life-years; QALYs, quality-adjusted life-years; Tx, treatment.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3278203&req=5

f2-ceor-4-001: Model cohort simulation.Abbreviations: ICER, incremental cost effectiveness ratio; LYs, life-years; QALYs, quality-adjusted life-years; Tx, treatment.

Mentions: Costs, event counts, life-years gained, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were accumulated at each stage of the model for each cohort of patients (Figure 2). Costs included those associated with treatment (drugs, physician visits, and monitoring tests) and those related to events (hospitalization and physician visits associated with coronary events).


Cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin in comparison with generic atorvastatin and simvastatin in a Swedish population at high risk of cardiovascular events.

Gandhi SK, Jensen MM, Fox KM, Smolen L, Olsson AG, Paulsson T - Clinicoecon Outcomes Res (2012)

Model cohort simulation.Abbreviations: ICER, incremental cost effectiveness ratio; LYs, life-years; QALYs, quality-adjusted life-years; Tx, treatment.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3278203&req=5

f2-ceor-4-001: Model cohort simulation.Abbreviations: ICER, incremental cost effectiveness ratio; LYs, life-years; QALYs, quality-adjusted life-years; Tx, treatment.
Mentions: Costs, event counts, life-years gained, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were accumulated at each stage of the model for each cohort of patients (Figure 2). Costs included those associated with treatment (drugs, physician visits, and monitoring tests) and those related to events (hospitalization and physician visits associated with coronary events).

Bottom Line: To assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin therapy compared with generic simvastatin and generic atorvastatin in reducing the incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality in a Swedish population with Framingham risk ≥20%.Probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of SEK500,000/QALY, rosuvastatin 20 mg would be cost-effective for approximately 75%-85% of simulations relative to atorvastatin or simvastatin 40 mg.Rosuvastatin 20 mg is cost-effective over a lifetime horizon compared with generic simvastatin or atorvastatin 40 mg in patients at high cardiovascular risk in Sweden.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: AstraZeneca LP, Wilmington, DE, USA.

ABSTRACT

Background: To assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin therapy compared with generic simvastatin and generic atorvastatin in reducing the incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality in a Swedish population with Framingham risk ≥20%.

Methods: A PROBABILISTIC MONTE CARLO SIMULATION MODEL BASED ON DATA FROM JUPITER (THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE USE OF STATINS IN PREVENTION: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin) was used to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin 20 mg daily versus simvastatin or atorvastatin 40 mg for the prevention of cardiovascular death and morbidity. The three- stage model included cardiovascular event prevention simulating the 4 years of JUPITER, initial prevention beyond the trial, and subsequent cardiovascular event prevention. A Swedish health care payer perspective (direct costs only) was modeled for a lifetime horizon, with 2008/2009 as the costing period. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with rosuvastatin 20 mg over simvastatin or atorvastatin 40 mg ranged from SEK88,113 (rosuvastatin 20 mg versus simvastatin 40 mg; Framingham risk ≥30%; net avoidance of 34 events/1000 patients) to SEK497,542 (versus atorvastatin 40 mg: Framingham risk ≥20%; net avoidance of 11 events/1000 patients) over a lifetime horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of SEK500,000/QALY, rosuvastatin 20 mg would be cost-effective for approximately 75%-85% of simulations relative to atorvastatin or simvastatin 40 mg. Sensitivity analyses indicated the findings to be robust.

Conclusion: Rosuvastatin 20 mg is cost-effective over a lifetime horizon compared with generic simvastatin or atorvastatin 40 mg in patients at high cardiovascular risk in Sweden.

No MeSH data available.