Cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin versus ezetimibe/simvastatin in managing dyslipidemic patients in Mexico

The Cost-Effectiveness of Hyperlipidemia Medication in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Review

Hyperlipidemia is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease - the leading cause of death globally. Increased understanding of the cost-effectiveness of hyperlipidemia treatment in low- and middle-income countries can guide approaches to hyperlipidemia management in resource-limited environments. We conducted a systematic review of the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of hyperlipidemia medication treatment in low- and middle-income countries using studies published between January 2010 and April 2020. We abstracted study details, including study design, treatment setting, intervention type, health metrics, costs standardized to constant 2019 US dollars, and cost-effectiveness measures including average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Comparisons across studies suggested that treatment via polypill is generally more cost-effective than statin-only therapy, and that primary prevention is more cost-effective than secondary prevention. Treating hyperlipidemia at a threshold of 5.7 mmol/l comes at a higher cost per disability-adjusted life-years averted than at a threshold of 6.2 mmol/l. Most pharmacological treatment strategies for hyperlipidemia were found to be cost-effective in most of the examined low- and middle-income countries.

The Identification of Admixture Patterns Could Refine Pharmacogenetic Counseling: Analysis of a Population-Based Sample in Mexico

Pharmacogenetic analysis has generated translational data that could be applied to guide treatments according to individual genetic variations. However, pharmacogenetic counseling in some mestizo (admixed) populations may require tailoring to different patterns of admixture. The identification and clustering of individuals with related admixture patterns in such populations could help to refine the practice of pharmacogenetic counseling. This study identifies related groups in a highly admixed population-based sample from Mexico, and analyzes the differential distribution of actionable pharmacogenetic variants. A subsample of 1728 individuals from the Mexican Genomic Database for Addiction Research (MxGDAR/Encodat) was analyzed. Genotyping was performed with the commercial PsychArray BeadChip, genome-wide ancestry was estimated using EIGENSOFT, and model-based clustering was applied to defined admixture groups. Actionable pharmacogenetic variants were identified with a query to the Pharmacogenomics Knowledge Base (PharmGKB) database, and functional prediction using the Variant Effect Predictor (VEP). Allele frequencies were compared with chi-square tests and differentiation was estimated by F_ST. Seven admixture groups were identified in Mexico. Some, like Group 1, Group 4, and Group 5, were found exclusively in certain geographic areas. More than 90% of the individuals, in some groups (Group 1, Group 4 and Group 5) were found in the Central-East and Southeast region of the country. MTRR p.I49M, ABCG2 p.Q141K, CHRNA5 p.D398N, SLCO2B1 rs2851069 show a low degree of differentiation between admixture groups. ANKK1 p.G318R and p.H90R, had the lowest allele frequency of Group 1. The reduction in these alleles reduces the risk of toxicity from anticancer and antihypercholesterolemic drugs. Our analysis identified different admixture patterns and described how they could be used to refine the practice of pharmacogenetic counseling for this admixed population.

Lipid-lowering efficacy of rosuvastatin

BACKGROUND

Rosuvastatin is one of the most potent statins and is currently widely prescribed. It is therefore important to know the dose-related magnitude of effect of rosuvastatin on blood lipids.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To quantify the effects of various doses of rosuvastatin on serum total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol, non-HDL-cholesterol and triglycerides in participants with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease. Secondary objectives To quantify the variability of the effect of various doses of rosuvastatin.To quantify withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) in the randomized placebo-controlled trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 10 of 12, 2014 in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to October week 5 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 2014 week 44), Web of Science Core Collection (1970 to 5 November 2014) and BIOSIS Citation Index (1969 to 31 October 2014). No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled and uncontrolled before-and-after trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of rosuvastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included and extracted data. WDAEs information was collected from the placebo-controlled trials.

MAIN RESULTS

One-hundred and eight trials (18 placebo-controlled and 90 before-and-after) evaluated the dose-related efficacy of rosuvastatin in 19,596 participants. Rosuvastatin 10 to 40 mg/day caused LDL-cholesterol decreases of 46% to 55%, when all the trials were combined using the generic inverse variance method. The quality of evidence for these effects is high. Log dose-response data over doses of 1 to 80 mg, revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol and non-HDL-cholesterol. When compared to atorvastatin, rosuvastatin was about three-fold more potent at reducing LDL-cholesterol. There was no dose-related effect of rosuvastatin on blood HDL-cholesterol, but overall, rosuvastatin increased HDL by 7%. There is a high risk of bias for the trials in this review, which would affect WDAEs, but unlikely to affect the lipid measurements. WDAEs were not statistically different between rosuvastatin and placebo in 10 of 18 of these short-term trials (risk ratio 0.84; 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 1.47).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The total blood total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol and non-HDL-cholesterol-lowering effect of rosuvastatin was linearly dependent on dose. Rosuvastatin log dose-response data were linear over the commonly prescribed dose range. Based on an informal comparison with atorvastatin, this represents a three-fold greater potency. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with rosuvastatin because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 44% of the placebo-controlled trials.