Figures & data
Figure 1 Model structure overview.
Figure 2 Model cohort simulation.
Table 1 Direct medical cost estimates for cardiovascular events
Table 2 Disutilities for CVD events
Table 3 Base case analysis for cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin vs generic atorvastatin and simvastatin: lifetime horizon in patients with Framingham risk ≥20% or ≥30%. Results per 1000 patients with 95% generic price reduction assumption
Figure 3 (A) One-way sensitivity analysis of lifetime horizon for Framingham 20% risk population (JUPITER population): rosuvastatin 20 mg versus atorvastatin 40 mg assuming a 95% generic price reduction from brand. (B) One-way sensitivity analysis of lifetime horizon for Framingham 20% risk population (JUPITER population): rosuvastatin 20 mg versus simvastatin 40 mg assuming a 95% generic price reduction from brand.
Table 4 Cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin (RSV) vs atorvastatin (ATV) and simvastatin (SMV): effect of alteration of time horizon, no future introduction of generic rosuvastatin, and increase in cardiac event relative risk
Figure 4 (A) Willingness to pay-cost/QALY ICER with a lifetime horizon for Framingham 20% risk population (JUPITER population) rosuvastatin 20 mg versus atorvastatin 40 mg, assuming a generic 95% price reduction from brand. (B) Willingness to pay-cost/QALY ICER with a lifetime horizon for Framingham 20% risk population (JUPITER population) rosuvastatin 20 mg versus simvastatin 40 mg, generic 95% price reduction from brand.
