Abstract:
Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the major public health problem in
Thailand. However, only a small proportion of people with high CVD risk over a tenyear
period receive statins; meanwhile, there are a number of people with low CVD
risk taking statins. There are many variations in price of statins available in Thailand.
Nevertheless, there is no evidence on which statin represents good value for money for
primary prevention of CVD under the Thai setting.
The aims of this study were (i) to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness
ratio (ICER) of offering statins for primary prevention of CVD for each CVD risk
group, and (ii) to estimate the budget impact if the statins were prescribed to those
people living with different CVD risks. This was a model-based economic evaluation.
A Markov model was constructed to estimate the costs and benefits in terms of quality
adjusted life year (QALY) gained by providing statins in comparison to a null or do
nothing scenario.
The study revealed that simvastatin, atorvastatin and pravastatin significantly
reduced incidence of acute coronary syndrome and stroke while there was no
information on rosuvastatin for the reduction of acute coronary syndrome and stroke.
Fluvastatin showed no significant effect of reducing CVD events. Providing statin for
people with a higher ten-year CVD risk yielded greater QALYs gained. In comparison
to the null scenario, providing simvastatin offered the highest QALYs gained with the
cheapest cost.
Based on societal perspective, if a ceiling threshold is equal to 3 times of Gross
Domestic Product per capita or 300,000 Baht per QALY gained in Thailand, a generic
simvastatin may be a cost-effective intervention for all people. However, if the ceiling
threshold is equal to 100,000 Baht per QALY gained, a generic simvastatin may be
still considered as a cost-effective intervention for all people except those with 2.5-5%
and less than 2.5% CVD risk.