Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy

, Volume 10, Issue 6, pp 787–794 | Cite as

A head-to-head comparison of the cost effectiveness of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors and fibrates in different types of primary hyperlipidemia

  • Sylvie Perreault
  • Vivian H. Hamilton
  • Frédéric Lavoie
  • Steven Grover
Lipids

Summary

The objective of this study was to compare the lifetime cost-effectiveness of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors and fibrates for the treatment of hyperlipidemia. Estimates of lipid modification achieved due to drug therapy were based on published head-to-head comparisons of specific HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors and fibrates in randomized, double-blind studies. We used a validated coronary heart disease (CHD) prevention computer model to estimate the costs and benefits of lifelong lipid modification. The patients were middle-aged men and women who were free of CHD, with either primary type IIa or IIb hyperlipidemia. The intervention used were specific HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors and fibrates at several dosages, which reduced total cholesterol 11–34% and increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol 1–29%. The main outcome measure was the cost per year of life saved after discounting benefits and costs by 5% annually. The lifetime cost effectiveness of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, simvastatin) and fibrates (bezafibrate, fenofibrate, gemfibrozil) for the treatment of primary hyperlipidemia varied according to patient population, the effectiveness of each drug in modifying lipid levels, and the price of each drug. The estimates of cost per year of life saved for HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors range from $19,886 to $73,632, and $16,955 to $59,488 for fibrates according to gender and type of primary hyperlipidemia. Fluvastatin 20 mg/day was significantly more cost effective than gemfibrozil 1200 mg/day for male patients with type IIa hyperlipidemia. Simvastatin 17.3 mg/day or 20 mg/day yielded similar cost-effectiveness ratios compared with fibrates among type II hyperlipidemic patients. However, micronized fenofibrate was more cost effective than simvastatin 20 mg/day among type IIb patients. The cost effectiveness of lipid therapy varies widely and can be maximized by selecting specific drugs for specific lipid abnormalities.

Key Words

cost effectiveness HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors fibrates primary hyperlipidemia 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lipid Research Clinics Program. The Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial Results. I: Reduction in incidence of coronary heart disease. JAMA 1984;251: 351–364.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lipid Research Clinics Program. The Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial Results. II: The relationship of reduction in incidence of coronary heart disease to cholesterol lowering. JAMA 1984;251:365–374.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stamler, J, Wentworth, D, Neaton, JD. Is the relationship between serum cholesterol and risk of premature death from coronary heart disease continuous and graded? JAMA 1986;256:2823–2828.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tyroler, HA. Review of lipid-lowering clinical trials in relation to observational epidemiologic studies. Circulation 1987;76:515–522.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frick, MH, Elo, O, Olli, E, et al. Helsinki Heart Study: Primary prevention trial with gemfibrozil in middle-age men with dyslipidemia. N Engl J Med 1987;317:1237–1245.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grover, SA, Coupal, L, Fakhry, R, Suissa, S. Screening for hypercholesterolemia among Canadians: How much will it cost? Can Med Assoc J 1991;144:161–168.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garber, AM, Sox, HCJr, Littenberg, B. Screening asymptomatic adults for cardiac risk factors: The serum cholesterol level. Ann Intern Med 1989;110:622–639.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tood, PA, Goa, KL. Simvastatin: A review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic potential in hypercholesterolemia. Drugs 1990;40:583–607.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Larsen, ML, Illingworth, DR. Drug treatment of dyslipoproteinemia. Med Clin North Am 1994;78:225–245.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Betteridge, DJ, Durrington, PN, Fairhurst, GJ, et al.. Comparison of lipid-lowering effects of low-dose fluvastatin and conventional-dose gemfibrozil in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. Am J Med 1994;96:45S-54S.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greten, H, Beil, FU, Schneider, J, et al. Treatment of primary hypercholesterolemia: Fluvastatin versus bezafibrate. Am J Med 1994;96:55S-63S.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Crepaldi, G, Baggio, G, Arca, M, et al. Pravastatin vs. gemfibrozil in the treatment of primary hypercholesterolemia. The Italian multicenter pravastatin study I. Arch Intern Med 1990;151:146–152.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Farnier, M, Bonnefous, F, Debbas, N, Irvine, A. Comparative efficacy and safety of micronized fenofibrate and simvastatin in patients with primary type IIa or IIb hyperlipidemia. Arch Intern Med 1994;154:441–449.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wiklund, O, Angelin, B, Bergman, M, et al. Pravastatin and gemfibrozil alone and in combination for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. Am J Med 1993;94:13–20.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tikkanen, MJ, Helve, E, Jaattela, A, et al. Comparison between lovastatin and gemfibrozil in the treatment of primary hypercholesterolemia: The Finnish multicenter study. Am J Cardiol 1988;62:35J-43J.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tikkanen, MJ, Bocanegra, TS, Walker, JF, Cook, T. Comparison of low-dose simvastatin and gemfibrozil in the treatment of elevated plasma cholesterol. A multicenter study. Am J Med 1989;87:47S-53S.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ziegler, O, Drouin, P. Simvastatin-Fenofibrate Study Group. Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of simvastatin and fenofibrate—A multicenter study. Cardiology 1990;77:50–57.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miele, NF, Page, D. Controversial costs of cocaine. JAMA 1992;267:507–508.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Canadian Heart Health Surveys: A profile of cardiovascular risk. Can Med Assoc J 1992;(suppl):28–36.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ontario Ministry of Health. Schedule of Benefits: Physician Services, 1989. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health, 1989.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Régie d'Assurance Maladie du Québec. Manuel des Médecins Omnipraticiens RAMQ, Québec, Québec: Régie de l'Assurance-Maladie du Québec, 1989.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Régie d'Assurance Maladie du Québec. Manuel des Médecins Specialistes RAMQ. Québec, Québec: Régie de l'Assurance-Maladie du Québec, 1989.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grover, SA, Abrahamowicz, M, Joseph, L, et al. The benefits of treating hyperlipidemia to prevent coronary heart disease: Estimating changes in life expectancy and morbidity. JAMA 1992;267:816–822.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Abbott, RD, McGee, D. The probability of developing certain cardiovascular disease in eight years at specified values of some characteristics. In: Kannel, WB, Wolf, PA, Garrison, RJ, eds. The Framingham Study: An Epidemiological Investigation of Cardiovascular Disease. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1987, section 37. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Publication no. NIH 87–2284.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Statistics Canada, Health Division. Life Tables, Canada, and Provinces, 1985–1987. Ottawa, Ontario: Vital Statistics and Diseases Registries Section, 1989. Formely catalogue no. 84–532.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kannel, WB, Wolf, PA, Garrison, RJ. Survival following initial cardiovascular events: 30 years follow-up. In: The Framingham Study: An Epidemiological Investigation of Cardiovascular Disease. Bethesda, MD: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 1988, section 35. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute publication no. NIH 88–2969.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Grover, SA, Coupal, L. Risk benefit assessment of drug treatment to prevent heart disease. Drug Safety 1994;10: 301–309.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Grover, SA, Coupal, L, Hu, X. Identifying adults at increased risk of coronary disease: How well do the current cholesterol guidelines work? JAMA 1995;274:801–806.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Manninen, V, Elo, MO, Frick, MH, et al. Lipid alterations and decline in the incidence of coronary heart disease in the Helsinki Heart Study. JAMA 1988;260:641–651.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hamilton, HV, Racicot, FE, Zowall, H, Coupal, L, Grover, S. The cost-effectiveness of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors to prevent coronary heart disease. Estimating the benefits of increasing HDL-C. JAMA 1995;273:1032–1038.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Randomized trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: The Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet 1994;344:1383–1389.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shepherd, J, Cobbe, SM, Ford, I, et al. Prevention of coronary heart disease with pravastatin in men with hypercholesterolemia. West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Trials Group. N Engl J Med 1995;333:1301–1307.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Manninen, V, Tenkanen, L, Koskinen, P, et al. Joint effects of serum triglyceride and LDL cholesterol and HDL cholesterol concentrations on coronary heart disease risk in the Helsinki Heart Study. Circulation 1992;85:37–45.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Frick, MH, Heinonen, OP, Huttunen, JK, et al. Efficacy of gemfibrozil in dyslipidaemic subjects with suspected heart disease. An ancillary study in the Helsinki Heart Study Frame Population. Ann Med 1993;25:41–45.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Smith, GD, Song, F, Sheldon, TA. Cholesterol lowering and mortality: The importance of considering initial level of risk. Br Med J 1993;306:1367–1373.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gould, AL, Rossouw, JE, Santanello, NC, et al. Cholesterol reduction yields clinical benefit, a new look at old data. Circulation 1995;91:2274–2282.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Garber, AM, Browner, WS, Hulley, SB. Cholesterol screening in asymptomatic adults, revisited. Ann Intern Med 1996;124:518–531.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Newman, TB, Hulley, SB. Carcinogenicity of lipid lowering drug. JAMA 1996;275:55–60.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Roberts, SD, Maxwell, DR, Gross, TL. Cost-effective care of end-stage renal disease: A billion dollar question. Ann Intern Med 1980;92:243.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Garner, TI, Dardis, R. Cost-effectiveness analysis of end-stage renal disease treatments. Med Care 1987;25:25–34.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sylvie Perreault
    • 1
    • 2
  • Vivian H. Hamilton
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
    • 2
  • Frédéric Lavoie
    • 1
    • 2
  • Steven Grover
    • 1
    • 3
    • 5
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for the Analysis of Cost-Effective CareThe Montreal General HospitalMontrealCanada
  2. 2.the Division of Clinical EpidemiologyThe Montreal General HospitalMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Department of MedicineMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  4. 4.Department of EconomicsMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  5. 5.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations