Publications (2)16.43 Total impact
-
Article: Efficacy of statins for primary prevention in people at low cardiovascular risk: a meta-analysis.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Statins were initially used to improve cardiovascular outcomes in people with established coronary artery disease, but recently their use has become more common in people at low cardiovascular risk. We did a systematic review of randomized trials to assess the efficacy and harms of statins in these individuals. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (to Jan. 28, 2011), registries of health technology assessments and clinical trials, and reference lists of relevant reviews. We included trials that randomly assigned participants at low cardiovascular risk to receive a statin versus a placebo or no statin. We defined low risk as an observed 10-year risk of less than 20% for cardiovascular-related death or nonfatal myocardial infarction, but we explored other definitions in sensitivity analyses. We identified 29 eligible trials involving a total of 80,711 participants. All-cause mortality was significantly lower among patients receiving a statin than among controls (relative risk [RR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-0.97) for trials with a 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease < 20% [primary analysis] and 0.83, 95% CI 0.73-0.94, for trials with 10-year risk < 10% [sensitivity analysis]). Patients in the statin group were also significantly less likely than controls to have nonfatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49-0.84) and nonfatal stroke (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.96). Neither metaregression nor stratified analyses suggested statistically significant differences in efficacy between high-and low-potency statins, or larger reductions in cholesterol. Statins were found to be efficacious in preventing death and cardiovascular morbidity in people at low cardiovascular risk. Reductions in relative risk were similar to those seen in patients with a history of coronary artery disease.Canadian Medical Association Journal 11/2011; 183(16):E1189-202. · 8.22 Impact Factor -
Article: Cost-effectiveness of the use of low- and high-potency statins in people at low cardiovascular risk.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Although statins have been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients at low cardiovascular risk, their absolute benefit is small in the short term, which may adversely affect cost-effectiveness. We sought to determine the long-term cost-effectiveness (beyond the duration of clinical trials) of low- and high-potency statins in patients at low cardiovascular risk and to estimate the impact on Canada's publicly funded health care system. Using Markov modelling, we performed a cost-utility analysis in which we compared low-potency statins (fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin and simvastatin) and high-potency statins (atorvastatin and rosuvastatin) with no statins in a simulated cohort of low-risk patients over a lifetime horizon. Model outcomes included costs (in 2010 Canadian dollars), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and the cost per QALY gained. Over a lifetime horizon, the cost of managing a patient at low cardiovascular risk was estimated to be about $10,100 without statins, $15,200 with low-potency statins and $16,400 with high-potency statins. The cost per QALY gained with high-potency statins (v. no statins) was $21 300; the use of low-potency statins was not considered economically attractive. These results were robust to sensitivity analyses, although their use became economically unattractive when the duration of benefit from statin use was assumed to be less than 10 years. Use of high-potency statins in patients at low cardiovascular risk was associated with a cost per QALY gained that was economically attractive by current standards, assuming that the benefit from statin use would continue for at least 10 years. However, the overall expenditure on statins would be substantial, and the ramifications of this practice should be carefully considered by policy-makers.Canadian Medical Association Journal 11/2011; 183(16):E1180-8. · 8.22 Impact Factor
