Search

We previously reported modest clinical 3-year benefit for topical imiquimod compared with surgery for superficial or nodular basal cell carcinoma at low-risk sites in our noninferiority randomized controlled SINS trial. Here we report 5-year data. Participants were randomized to imiquimod 5% cream once daily (superficial basal cell carcinoma, 6 weeks; nodular basal cell carcinoma, 12 weeks) or excisional surgery (4-mm margin). The primary outcome was clinical absence of initial failure or signs of recurrence at the 3-year dermatology review. Five-year success was defined as 3-year success plus absence of recurrences identified through hospital, histopathology, and general practitioner records. Of 501 participants randomized, 401 contributed to the modified intention-to-treat analyses at year 3 (primary outcome), 383 (96%) of whom had data at year 5. Five-year success rates for imiquimod were 82.5% (170/206) compared with 97.7% (173/177) for surgery (relative risk of imiquimod success = 0.84, 95% confidence interval = 0.77-0.91, P < 0.001). These were comparable to year 3 success rates of 83.6% (178/213) and 98.4% (185/188) for imiquimod and surgery, respectively. Most imiquimod treatment failures occurred in year 1. Although surgery is clearly superior to imiquimod, this study shows sustained benefit for lesions that respond early to topical imiquimod., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Generic statins may be considered as a compelling treatment option for managing dyslipidemia, due to their reduced cost, compared to their brand name equivalent. However, further assessment is needed to determine whether using a particular generic statin is more cost-effective relative to other brand-name statins., Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of the most commonly prescribed statins in Canada with respect to 1) lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level (LDL-C) and 2) achieving National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) LDL-C goal., Methods: The study was conducted from the perspective of Canadian payers over a 1-year time horizon. Clinical data were obtained from the STELLAR trial (n=2268) in which patients received fixed doses of rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, simvastatin and pravastatin. Brand and generic drug costs were based on wholesale acquisition costs. Relative cost-effectiveness was assessed using the net monetary benefit approach (NMB), which allows probabilistic cost-effectiveness comparison of the various treatment options over a wide range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) values for a unit of clinical effect., Results: Rosuvastatin 10mg was the most cost-effective statin over the largest range of WTP values. Pravastatin 10mg was cost-effective when the clinical outcomes had little or no monetary value. Rosuvastatin 20 mg was more cost-effective at the highest end of the WTP spectrum., Conclusion: The result of this analysis provides evidence that prescribing generic statins in Canada does not necessarily translate into the most cost-effective option for treating dyslipidemia; especially as the monetary value of 1% decrease in LDL-C or patients achieving NCEP ATP III target increases.

Statin therapy decreases low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and the risk of coronary heart disease but has a considerable short-term effect on health care budgets. The cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin (Crestor) has been compared with those of atorvastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin in lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and achieving National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of health care payers in the United States. Clinical data were obtained from the Statin Therapies for Elevated Lipid Levels Compared Across Doses to Rosuvastatin (STELLAR) trial. Drug costs were based on wholesale acquisition costs. Cost effectiveness was assessed with the net monetary benefit approach and a 1-year time horizon. Rosuvastatin at 10 mg, the recommended starting dose, was the most cost-effective statin over a large range of "willingness-to-pay" values for a unit of clinical effect (i.e., a 1% decrease in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol or a patient achieving the goal).