Determinants of the cost-effectiveness of statins

SCRIBCO, Blue Bell, PA 19422, USA.
Journal of managed care pharmacy: JMCP (Impact Factor: 2.71). 01/2003; 9(6):544-51.
Source: PubMed


To examine the cost-effectiveness of statins in relation to different measures of effectiveness, differences in efficacy among individual statins, and the risk of coronary heart disease. Efficacy is defined here as the magnitude of the effect produced by a given amount of drug, as demonstrated in placebocontrol trials; i.e., the effectiveness per unit dose.
Treatment guidelines categorize patients by their risk of coronary events and set lower target cholesterol levels for patients at higher risk. Statins vary in their efficacy. If effectiveness is expressed as percent lowering in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and relatively little cholesterol lowering is in low-risk patients.even statins of low efficacy provide adequate cholesterol lowering, and drug price is the determining factor of costeffectiveness. For patients at high risk.the primary target group, which has been expanded in recent guidelines.high-efficacy statins are required to meet the more aggressive cholesterol goals, and efficacy is the important determinant of cost-effectiveness. When effectiveness is expressed in terms of life-years saved, the cost-effectiveness of statins as a class for treatment of high-risk patients compares favorably with the cost-effectiveness of generally accepted medical treatments.
In order to optimize cost-effectiveness, the level of effectiveness required to treat the specific patient or patient group must be considered. Statin efficacy is the major determinant of cost-effectiveness when greater cholesterol lowering is required, i.e., for high-risk patients, who make up the primary target group. Statin price is the more important factor if only limited cholesterol lowering (e.g., 35% or less reduction in LDL) is required.

Download full-text


Available from: Helene Glassberg, Apr 01, 2014
  • Source
    • "A meta-analysis of CEAs of statins published before 2002 concluded that patients’ cardiac risk was the primary determinant of whether statin treatment was cost-effective, and that it was unlikely that statins would be cost-effective for patients with an annual risk of <1% [9]. Conversely, a 2003 review found that statins would likely be cost-effective for primary prevention in groups without known cardiac disease but with cardiac risk factors [11]. However, since these studies were published, the price of statins has fallen substantially and will likely continue to decrease [12], a trend which would be expected to improve the cost-effectiveness of statins. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The literature on the cost-effectiveness of statin drugs in primary prevention of coronary heart disease is complex. The objective of this study is to compare the disparate results of recent cost-effectiveness analyses of statins. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on statin cost-effectiveness. The four studies that met inclusion criteria reported varying conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of statin treatment, without a clear consensus as to whether statins are cost-effective for primary prevention. However, after accounting for each study's assumptions about statin costs, we found substantial agreement among the studies. Studies that assumed statins to be more expensive found them to be less cost-effective, and vice-versa. Furthermore, treatment of low-risk groups became cost-effective as statins became less expensive. Drug price is the primary determinant of statin cost-effectiveness within a given risk group. As more statin drugs become generic, patients at low risk for coronary disease may be treated cost-effectively. Though many factors must be weighed in any medical decision, from a cost-effectiveness perspective, statins may now be considered an appropriate therapy for many patients at low risk for heart disease.
    BMC Research Notes 07/2012; 5(1):373. DOI:10.1186/1756-0500-5-373
  • Source
    • "22 Since majority of hyperlipidemia patients do not have existing cardiovascular disease, we base our analysis of cost-effectiveness of DTCA on efficacy of statins for primary prevention. The efficacy of statins for secondary prevention has been shown to be larger than that for primary prevention (Morrison & Glassberg, 2003). Our estimate of effectiveness of DTCA is therefore conservative. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study analyzes the effect of DTCA expenditures for anti-hyperlipidemia drugs on patient behaviors. The key findings are: (a) DTCA expenditures have a positive and long-term effect on the number of visits to physicians by newly-diagnosed hyperlipidemia patients. (b) The effectiveness of DTCA in generating new patient visits varies substantially across patient sub-groups. (c) The effect of DTCA is larger on drug visits than on non-drug-only visits. (d) Own-brand DTCA expenditures increase the number of patient requests for Lipitor and Zocor, but have no effect on patient requests for Pravachol. Competing drugs’ DTCA expenditures have a positive effect only on patient requests for the leading brand, Lipitor. (e) A cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that the economic benefits of DTCA in terms of life years saved by preventing cardiovascular disease are considerably larger than the costs of advertising. (f) DTCA on TV has strong effects on underserved segments of the population, such as those on Medicaid. We believe this finding should be carefully considered by proponents of a complete ban or stricter regulations on DTCA.
    International Journal of Research in Marketing 04/2011; 28(3). DOI:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2011.04.001 · 1.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To better understand health plan member experience with point-of-service prescription step-therapy edits and outcomes in terms of drug received. Self-administered mailed surveys were sent to 1,000 members who experienced a step-therapy edit from September 1, 2002, through January 31, 2003, for proton pump inhibitors or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Based upon these findings, a second survey was conducted by telephone among 617 members who experienced a step-therapy edit from January through April 25, 2003, and who had no subsequent prescription claim for the drug therapy class associated with the edit. The mailed survey generated a 23% response rate, and the telephone survey generated a 33% response rate. Just over 66% of the mail survey respondents indicated that they contacted their physician directly to try to remedy the situation, while 40% indicated that their pharmacist contacted their physician. Forty-four (44%) percent of members indicated that they received a different medication than was originally prescribed, 15% obtained prior authorization for the brand medication, 11% received no medication, 11% paid full price for the branded medication, 8% got an over-the-counter medication, and 4% received samples from their physician. Approximately 7% sought other means of obtaining coverage (i.e., they used spouse.s insurance) or did not remember the outcome. Member and pharmacy contact with the physician significantly influenced whether the member obtained a medication covered by their health plan (odds ratio [OR] = 6.5; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.76-15.12 and OR = 4.6; 95% CI, 1.96-10.60, respectively). In a separate survey conducted by telephone among a different group of members, insight into reasons why members did not obtain any medication was obtained. Using a closed-ended question, 12% (n = 25) of members indicated receiving no medication. Upon further questioning, however, 32% of those who indicated that they had not received a medication said that they had in fact received a medication to treat their condition some time after the step edit. The second most common reason for not receiving a medication included issues related to cost (i.e., willingness to pay) or affordability (16% and 28%, respectively). The results of this study suggest that a majority of members receive a medication covered by their health plan subsequent to rejection of a claim for a prescribed drug that is the target of a step-therapy edit. However, there are opportunities for better member and provider communication designed to increase the use of first-line drugs and reduce the number of members paying out-of-pocket or receiving no medication.
    Journal of managed care pharmacy: JMCP 10(4):291-8. · 2.71 Impact Factor
Show more