Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of applying the JUPITER (Justification for the Use of statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin) trial results into clinical practice.

BACKGROUND:

The JUPITER trial found that rosuvastatin reduces vascular events in apparently healthy subjects with elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) but normal low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. The implications of expanding treatment recommendations based on these results have not been evaluated.

METHODS:

We constructed a cost-effectiveness model of men ≥ 50 years and women ≥ 60 years with LDL cholesterol levels of <130 mg/dl and no known cardiovascular disease. We compared: 1) hs-CRP testing followed by rosuvastatin treatment for patients with hs-CRP levels ≥ 2.0 mg/l; and 2) usual care (i.e., no testing and no treatment). Estimates of treatment effectiveness were based on the JUPITER trial and were varied in sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS:

Among patients with LDL <130 mg/dl and hs-CRP levels ≥ 2.0 mg/l, rosuvastatin had an incremental cost-effectiveness of $25,198 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained compared to usual care. If the effectiveness of rosuvastatin were 50% of that observed in JUPITER, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio would increase to $50,871 per QALY. Implementing this strategy only in patients with a Framingham risk score ≥ 10% yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness of $14,205 per QALY. Among such intermediate-risk patients, a JUPITER-based strategy becomes cost-saving at a rosuvastatin price of < $0.86 per day.

CONCLUSIONS:

Rosuvastatin treatment for JUPITER-eligible patients appears to be cost-effective, particularly among those with a Framingham risk score ≥ 10%.

Copyright © 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.