Background: Rosuvastatin calcium (CRESTOR) has demonstrated superior efficacy in reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). However, healthcare providers and authorities require information on its cost-effectiveness in the treatment of dyslipidaemia.
Design: A retrospective pharmacoeconomic analysis was performed using data from the Statin Therapies for Elevated Lipid Levels compared Across doses to Rosuvastatin (STELLAR) trial. The cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin 10-40 mg was compared with atorvastatin 10-80 mg, pravastatin 10-40 mg and both branded and generic simvastatin 10-80 mg in achieving Third Joint European Task Force LDL-C goals in patients with hypercholesterolaemia.
Methods: The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service, using clinical data from the STELLAR trial and drug acquisition costs. Cost-effectiveness was compared using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), with sensitivity analyses applied to both efficacy and cost parameters.
Results: In terms of patients achieving goal, rosuvastatin 10 mg dominated (was more effective at equal or lower cost) atorvastatin 10 and 20 mg, pravastatin 20 and 40 mg, branded simvastatin 10-80 mg and generic simvastatin 40 and 80 mg. Where rosuvastatin 10 mg did not dominate, ICERs ranged from 36 pounds sterling to 162 pounds sterling per extra patient to goal. Rosuvastatin 20 and 40 mg were cost-effective compared with milligram-equivalent and higher doses of other branded statins. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust to variations in both statin efficacy and price.
Conclusion: In patients with hypercholesterolaemia, rosuvastatin is a cost-effective statin option in treating to LDL-C goals.