PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 47–74 | Cite as

Pharmacoeconomics of Lipid-Lowering Agents for Primary and Secondary Prevention of Coronary Artery Disease

Review Article Primary and Secondary Prevention of CAD

Abstract

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death and the leading source of healthcare expenditure in the US and most other industrialised countries. Cholesterol lowering by pharmacological means prevents atherosclerotic plaque progression and has been shown to reduce both fatal and nonfatal coronary events in patients with or without coronary artery disease (CAD). Because of their excellent efficacy and safety profiles, the introduction of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (also known as ‘statins’) in 1987 raised hopes for demonstrating the survival benefit of cholesterol reduction. In the past decade, several large-scale placebo-controlled trials with statin therapy have revisited the relationship between cholesterol reduction, cardiovascular disease and mortality. The West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study (WOSCOPS) [pravastatin] and the Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study (AFCAPS/TexCAPS) [lovastatin] have shown significant cardiovascular disease reduction in primary prevention trials of patients with ele-vated and normal cholesterol levels, respectively. The Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S), the Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease (LIPID) Study and the Cholesterol and Recurrent Events (CARE) trial [pravastatin] have shown significant cardiovascular disease reduction in patients with a previous history of CAD with high, moderate and normal cholesterol levels, respectively. Three of these studies (4S, WOSCOPS and LIPID) have shown significant reduction in all-cause mortality, while all the statin secondary prevention trials (4S, CARE and LIPID) have demonstrated significant reduction in cerebrovascular disease.

Earlier cholesterol reduction cost-effectiveness studies with nonstatin treatments (bile acid resins, fibrates, niacin and diet) suggested that only patients at extremely high risk could be treated with lipid therapy in a cost-effective manner. More recently, rigorous outcomes evidence demonstrates that statins, particularly for simvastatin for secondary prevention and lovastatin for primary prevention, have a broadly favourable cost-effectiveness profile. Based on US medical price levels and the available clinical trial data on statins, it would be cost effective [e.g. cost less than $US50 000/year of life saved] to intervene with statin therapy in any patient with an annual CAD risk exceeding 1%. This includes all patients with pre-existing CAD or diabetes mellitus, and many more primary prevention patients than are currently contemplated by the US National Cholesterol Education Panel treatment guidelines. Achieving such a goal will require enormous changes in patient education, clinical perspective, healthcare practice and healthcare finances. But any proven opportunity for saving the lives of 25% of those dying from cardiovascular disease each year deserves to be considered with the utmost seriousness and urgency.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gillium RF. Trends in acute myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease death in the United States. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993; 23: 1273–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goldman L, Cook F. The decline in ischemic heart disease mortality rates: an analysis of the comparative effects of medical interventions and changes in lifestyle. Ann Intern Med 1984; 101: 825–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sytokwski PA, Kannel WB, Agostino RB. Changes in risk factor and the decline in mortality from cardiovascular disease: The Framingham Heart Study. N Engl J Med 1990; 322: 1635–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    American Heart Association. 1998 Heart and stroke statistical update. Dallas (TX): American Heart Association, 1988Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wittels EH, Hay JW, Gotto AM. Medical costs of coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 1990; 65: 432–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Castelli WP, Anderson KM, Wilson PW, et al. Lipids and risk of coronary heart disease: The Framingham Study. Ann Epidemiol 1992; 2: 23–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levy D, Wilson WF, Anderson KM, et al. Stratifying the patient at risk from coronary disease: new insights from the Framingham heart study. Am Heart J 1990; 119: 712–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wong ND, Wilson PW, Kannel WB. Serum cholesterol as a prognostic factor after myocardial infarction: The Framingham Study. Ann Intern Med 1991; 115: 687–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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: 2823–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Canner PL, Berge KG, Wenger NK, et al. Fifteen year mortality in Coronary Drug Project Research Group: long-term benefit with niacin. J Am Coll Cardiol 1986; 8: 1245–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blankenhorn DW, Nessim SA, Johnson RL, et al. Beneficial effects of combined colestipol-niacin therapy on coronary atherosclerosis and coronary venous bypass grafts. JAMA 1987; 257: 3233–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Research Group. Relationship between baseline risk factors and coronary heart disease and total mortality in the multiple risk factor intervention trial. Prev Med 1986; 15: 254–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lipid Research Clinics Program. The Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trials Results. I: reduction in incidence of coronary heart disease. JAMA 1984; 251: 351–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lipid Research Clinics Program. The Lipid Research Clinical Coronary Primary Prevention Trials Results. II: the relationship of reduction in incidence of coronary heart disease to cholesterol-lowering. JAMA 1984; 251: 365–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Watts GF, Lewis B, Brunt JN, et al. Effects on coronary artery disease of lipid-lowering diet, or diet plus cholestyramine, in the St. Thomas’ Atherosclerosis Regression Study (STARS). Lancet 1992; 339: 563–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brown G, Albers JJ, Fisher LD, et al. Regression of coronary artery disease as a result of intensive lipid lowering therapy in men with high levels of apolipoprotein B. N Engl J Med 1990; 323: 1289–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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 hypercholesterolemia. N Engl J Med 1990; 323: 946–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frick MH, Elo O, Haapa K, et al. Helsinki Heart Study: primary prevention trial with gemfibrozil in middle-aged men with dyslipidemia. Safety of treatment, changes in risk factors and incidence of coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med 1987; 317: 1237–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shepherd J, Cobbe SM, Ford I, et al. Prevention of coronary heart disease with pravastatin in men with hypercholesterolemia. N Engl J Med 1995; 333: 1301–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Downs JR, Clearfield M, Weiss S, AFCAPS/TexCAPS Research Group, et al. Primary prevention of acute coronary events with lovastatin in men and women with average cholesterol levels: results of AFCAPS/TexCAPS. JAMA 1998; 279 (20): 1615–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. Randomized trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study. Lancet 1994; 344: 1383–9Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pitt B, Mancini J, Ellis SG, et al. Pravastatin limitation of atherosclerosis in the coronary arteries (PLAC-I): reduction in atherosclerosis progression and clinical events. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995; 26: 1133–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Crouse JB, Byington RP, Bond MG, et al. Pravastatin, lipids, and atherosclerosis in the carotid arteries (PLAC-II). Am J Cardiol 1995; 75: 455–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sacks 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: 1001–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    The Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease (LIPID) Study Group. Prevention of cardiovascular events and death with pravastatin in patients with coronary heart disease and a broad range of initial cholesterol levels. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 1349–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Byington RP, Jukema JW, Salonen JT, et al. Reduction in cardiovascular events during pravastatin therapy: pooled analysis of clinical events of the pravastatin atherosclerosis intervention program. Circulation 1995; 92: 2419–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. Summary of the second report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. JAMA 1993; 269 (23): 3015–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Freund D, Dittus R. Principles of pharmacoeconomic evaluation of drug therapy. Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 1 (1): 20–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Weinstein M, Stason W. Foundations of cost effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med 1977; 296 (13): 716–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    O’Brien B, Rushby J. Outcome assessment in cardiovascular cost-benefit studies. Am Heart J 1990; 119: 740–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kupersmith J, Helmes-Rovner M, Hogan A, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis in heart disease. Pt I: general principles. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 1994; 37 (3): 161–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hay J. Reporting pharmacoeconomic model results. Value Health 1998; 1 (3): 187–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hay JW, Wittels EH, Gotto AM. An economic evaluation of lovastatin for cholesterol lowering and coronary artery disease reduction. Am J Cardiol 1991; 67: 789–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sempos CT, Cleeman JI, Carroll MD, et al. Prevalence of high blood cholesterol among U.S. adults: an update based on guidelines from the second report of the national cholesterol education program adult treatment panel. JAMA 1993; 269: 3009–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kinosian BP, Eisenberg JM. Cutting into cholesterol: cost-effective alternatives for treating hypercholesterolemia. JAMA 1988; 259: 2249–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent or treat coronary heart disease. Ann Rev Public Health 1985; 6: 41–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schulman KA, Kinosian B, Jacobson TA, et al. Reducing high blood cholesterol level with drugs: cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic management. JAMA 1990; 264: 3025–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Oster G, Epstein AM. Cost-effectiveness of antihyperlipidemic therapy in the prevention of coronary heart disease: the case of cholestyramine. JAMA 1987; 258: 2381–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Martens LL, Rutten FF, Erkelens W, et al. Clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of lowering serum cholesterol levels: the case of simvastatin and cholestyramine in the Netherlands. Am J Cardiol 1990; 65: 27F–32FPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Martens LL, Rutten FF. Cost effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapy in the Netherlands. Am J Med 1989; 87 Suppl. 4A: 54S–8SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kelley MD. Hypercholesterolemia: the cost of treatment in perspective. South Med J 1990; 83 (12): 1421–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Goldman P, Lee TH, Weinstein MC, Goldman PA, et al. Costeffectiveness of HMG-CoA reductase inhibition for primary and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. JAMA 1991; 265: 1145–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hamilton VH, Racicot FE, Zowall H, et al. The cost-effectiveness of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors to prevent coronary heart disease. JAMA 1995; 273: 1032–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Martens LL, Guibert R. Cost-effectiveness analysis of lipid modifying therapy in Canada: comparison of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors in the primary prevention of coronary heart disease. Clin Ther 1994; 16 (6): 1052–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    WOSCOPS Economic Analysis Group. The West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study: weighing the cost and benefits of primary prevention with pravastatin. BMJ 1997; 315: 1577–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hay J, Lapuerta P, Yuan Y, et al. Pravastatin cost-effectiveness for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in the United States [abstract]. American Heart Association 70th Scientific Session; 1997 Nov; OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Johannesson M, Borgquist L, Jonsson B, et al. The cost effectiveness of lipid lowering in Swedish primary health care. J Intern Med 1996; 240: 23–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1997Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, et al. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can Med Assoc J 1992; 146 (4): 473–81Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mark DB, Hlatky MA, Califf RM, et al. Cost effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy with tissue plasminogen activator as compared with streptokinase for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1995; 332: 1418–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tengs TO, Adams ME, Pliskin JS, et al. Five hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness. Risk Anal 1995; 15 (3): 369–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Dorr AE, Gundersen K, Schneider JC, et al. Colestipol hydrochloride in hypercholesterolemic patients: effect on serum cholesterol and mortality. J Chronic Dis 1978; 31: 5–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kirby RW, Anderson JW, Sieling B. Oat bran intake selectively lowers serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations. Am J Clin Nutr 1981; 34: 824–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Syam S, Fifer SK. Gemfibrozil cost-benefit study: targeting subgroups for effective hyperlipidemia drug therapy. Drugs 1990; 40 Suppl. 1: 42–52Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Perrealt S, Hamilton VH, Lavoie F, et al. A head-to-head comparison of the cost effectiveness of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors and fibrates in different types of primary hyperlipidemia. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 1996; 10: 787–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Bakker-Arkema RG, Davidson MH, Goldstein RJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of a new HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor, atorvastatin, in patients with hypertriglyceridemia. JAMA 1996; 275: 128–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Bischoff H, Angerbauer R, Bender J, et al. Cerivastatin: pharmacology of a novel synthetic and highly active HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor. Atherosclerosis 1997; 135 (1): 119–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Rosenson RS, Tangney CC. Antiatherothrombotic properties of statins: implications for cardiovascular event reduction. JAMA 1998; 279: 1643–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Pilote L, Granger C, Armstrong PW, et al. Differences in the treatment of myocardial infarction between the United States and Canada. Med Care 1995; 33 (6): 598–610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Blum CB. Comparison of properties of four inhibitors of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-conenzyme A reductase. Am J Cardiol 1994; 73: 3D–11DPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Conti CR. Economics of lipid lowering with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors [letter]. Clin Cardiol 1995; 18: 60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Roberts WC. Retail costs of the statin lipid-lowering drugs [editorial]. Am J Cardiol 1994; 74: 1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Gotto AM, Hay JW. Cost of lipid-lowering statin drugs [letter]. Am J Cardiol 1996; 77: 226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ashraf T, Hay JW, Pitt B, et al. Cost-effectiveness of pravastatin in secondary prevention of coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 1996; 78: 409–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Spearman ME, Summers K, Moore V, et al. Cost-effectiveness of initial therapy with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors to treat hypercholesterolemia in a primary care setting of a managed-care organization. Clin Ther 1997; 19: 582–602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Koren MJ, Smith DG, Hunninghake DB, et al. The cost of reaching National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Goals in hypercholesterolaemic patients: a comparison of atorvastatin, simvastatin, lovastatin and fluvastatin. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 14 (1): 59–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    American Heart Association Annual Meeting. Abstract; 1998 Nov; Dallas (TX)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Tyroler HA. Review of lipid-lowering clinical trials in relation to observational epidemiologic studies. Circulation 1987; 76: 515–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Leaverton PE, Sorlie PD, Kleinman JC, et al. Representativeness of the Framingham risk model for coronary heart disease mortality: a comparison with a national cohort study. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 775–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Johannesson M, Jonsson B, Kjeksjus J, et al. Cost effectiveness of simvastatin treatment to lower cholesterol levels in patients with coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 332–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Reckless JP. The 4S study and its pharmacoeconomic implications. Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 9 (2): 101–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    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: 1796–802PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Jonsson B, Johannesson M, Kjekshus J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cholesterol lowering: results from the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Eur Heart J 1996; 17: 1001–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study Group. Influence of pravastatin and plasma lipids on clinical events in the West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study. Circulation 1998; 97 (15): 1440–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Pedersen TR, Olsson AG, Faergeman O, et al. Lipoprotein changes and reduction in the incidence of major coronary heart disease events in the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study. Circulation 1998; 97 (15): 1453–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Lennernas H, Fager G. Pharmacodynamics and pharmackinetics of the HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors: similarities and differences. Clin Pharmacokinet 1997; 32 (5): 403–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Shepherd J, Park JS. Prevention of heart disease: is LDL reduction the outcome of choice? Value Health 1998; 1 (2): 120–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Arntzenius AC, Kromhout D, Barth JD, et al. Diet, lipoproteins and the progression of coronary atherosclerosis. N Engl J Med 1985; 312: 805–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Ornish D, Brown SE, Scherwitz LW, et al. Can lifestyle changes reverse coronary heart disease? Lancet 1990; 336: 129–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Caggiula AW, Watson JE, Kuller LH, et al. Cholesterol-lowering intervention program: effect of the step I diet in community offices practices. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 1205–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Haffner SM, Lehto S, Ronnemaa T, et al. Mortality from coronary heart disease in subjects with type 2 diabetes and in nondiabetic subjects with and without prior myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1998; 339 (4): 229–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Bonnette J. Decision making in lipid therapy: a managed care perspective. Value Health. In pressGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Cost-effectiveness of coronary artery bypass surgery. Circulation 1982; 66 Suppl. III: 56–66Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Wong JB, Sonnenberg FA, Salem DN, et al. Myocardial revascularization for chronic stable angina: analysis of the role of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty based on data available in 1989. Ann Intern Med 1990; 113: 852–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Goldman L, Sia SB, Cook EF, et al. Costs and effectiveness of routine therapy with long-term beta adrenergic antagonists after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 152–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Hlatky MA, Rogers WJ, Johnstone I, et al. Medical care costs and quality of life after randomization to coronary angioplasty or coronary bypass surgery. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 92–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Roberts SD, Maxwell DR, Gross TL. Cost-effective care of end-stage renal disease: a billion dollar question [editorial]. Ann Intern Med 1980; 92: 243PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Garner TI, Dardis R. Cost-effectiveness analysis of end-stage renal disease treatments. Med Care 1987; 25: 25–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    White CM, Chow M. A review of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. Pharmacist 1998; 1: HS19–28Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Boberg M, Angerbauer R, Fey P, et al. Metabolism of cerivastatin by human liver microsomes in vitro. Drug Metab Dispos 1997; 25 (3): 321–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Neuvonen PJ, Kantola T, Kivisto K. Simvastatin but not pravastatin is very susceptible to interaction with the CYP3A4 inhibitor itraconazole. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998; 63: 332–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Kantola T, Kivisto K, Neuvonen P. Effect of itraconazole on pharmacokinetics of atorvastatin. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998; 64: 58–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Hoes AW, Grobbee DE, Lubsen J, et al. Diuretics, beta-blockers, and the risk for sudden cardiac death in hypertensive patients. Ann Intern Med 1995; 123: 481–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Psaty BM, Heckbert SR, Koepsell TD, et al. The risk of myocardial infarction associated with antihypertensive drug therapies. JAMA 1996: 27; 620–5Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Nattel S, Arenal A. Antiarrhythmic prophylaxis after acute myocardial infarction: is lidocaine still useful? Drugs 1993; 45 (1): 9–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Hine LK, Laird N, Hewitt P, et al. Meta-analytic evidence against prophylactic use of lidocaine in acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med 1989; 149: 2694–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    MacMahon S, Collins R, Peto R, et al. Effects of prophylactic lidocaine in suspected acute myocardial infarction: an overview of results from the randomized, controlled trials. JAMA 1988; 260: 1910–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial investigators. Preliminary report: effect of encainide and flecainide on mortality in a randomized trial of arrhythmia suppression after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1989; 321 (6): 406–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial II investigators. Effect of the antiarrhythmic agent moricizine on survival after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1992; 327 (4): 227–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Connolly HM, Crary JL, Mcgoon MD, et al. Valvular heart disease associated with fenfluramine-phentermine. N Engl J Med 1997; 337 (9): 581–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Goldman L, Weinstein MC, Williams LW. Relative impact of targeted versus population wide cholesterol interventions on the incidence of coronary artery disease: projections of the coronary heart disease policy model. Circulation 1989; 80: 254–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Berwick DM, Cretin S, Keeler E. Cholesterol, children and heart disease: an analysis of alternatives. Pediatrics 1981; 68 (5): 721–30PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutical Economics and PolicyUniversity of Southern California CHP 140Los AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of Pharmacy and TherapeuticsUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.Pharmacoeconomics PPD IncRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations