An economic analysis of the Atorvastatin Comparative Cholesterol Efficacy and Safety Study (ACCESS)

Abstract

Introduction: The objective of the Atorvastatin Comparative Cholesterol Efficacy and Safety Study (ACCESS) was to compare the efficacy and safety of the five 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors in a randomised, controlled, yet large-scale study. ACCESS also produced data that permitted comparative analysis of the cost to achieve National Cholesterol Education Panel (NCEP) II low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) targets.

Study design: A 54-week, multicentre, open-label, randomised, parallel-arm, active-control study in men and women with or without documented coronary heart disease or peripheral vascular disease. Data included medication use, clinic visits, adverse events, LDL-C and other laboratory measures. Analyses of resource use and cost are reported from a third-party payer perspective.

Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the following treatments: atorvastatin (10-80 mg/day); fluvastatin (20-40 mg/day, or 40 mg twice daily); lovastatin (20-40 mg/day, or 40 mg twice daily); pravastatin (10-40 mg/day); or simvastatin (10-40 mg/day). Patients were started at the lowest available dose and titrated to higher doses at 6-week intervals until they achieved the NCEP II LDL-C target or reached the highest available dose of medication.

Patients: A total of 153 centres enrolled 3887 patients: atorvastatin (n = 1944); fluvastatin (n = 493); lovastatin (n = 494); pravastatin (n = 478); and simvastatin (n = 478). Inclusion criteria included LDL-C >or= 30 mg/dL higher than NCEP II LDL-C target (stratified by risk factors), fasting triglyceride values < 400 mg/dL, and a confirmed negative serum pregnancy test. Known hypersensitivity to statins, use of prohibited medications, uncontrolled diabetes, acute liver disease and age > 80 years or < 18 years were among the exclusion criteria.

Results: Mean total treatment costs to reach LDL-C targets for patients receiving atorvastatin (US dollars 683.37 in 2001) were significantly less than mean total treatment costs for patients receiving fluvastatin (difference = US dollars 211.35, p < 0.01), lovastatin (US dollars 607.96, p < 0.01), pravastatin (US dollars 424.60, p < 0.01) and simvastatin (US dollars 95.74, p < 0.01). Results were robust to sensitivity analyses using alternative definitions of the patient population (randomised, intent-to-treat, completers) and cost measures (50th percentile charges, 95th percentile charges, Medicare prices).

Conclusions: Compared with the other statins studied, atorvastatin was associated with the lowest resource use and costs when used to treat patients to their NCEP II LDL-C targets. Atorvastatin was also associated with the highest percentage of patients achieving their desired clinical outcomes. Therefore, in cost-effectiveness terms, it dominated the four other statins.