Statins for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention in people living with HIV in Thailand: a cost‐effectiveness analysis.

Introduction: People living with HIV (PLHIV) have an elevated risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared to their HIV‐negative peers. Expanding statin use may help alleviate this burden. However, the choice of statin in the context of antiretroviral therapy is challenging. Pravastatin and pitavastatin improve cholesterol levels in PLHIV without interacting substantially with antiretroviral therapy. They are also more expensive than most statins. We evaluated the cost‐effectiveness of pravastatin and pitavastatin for the primary prevention of CVD among PLHIV in Thailand who are not currently using lipid‐lowering therapy. Methods: We developed a discrete‐state microsimulation model that randomly selected (with replacement) individuals from the TREAT Asia HIV Observational Database cohort who were aged 40 to 75 years, receiving antiretroviral therapy in Thailand, and not using lipid‐lowering therapy. The model simulated each individual's probability of experiencing CVD. We evaluated: (1) treating no one with statins; (2) treating everyone with pravastatin 20mg/day (drug cost 7568 Thai Baht ($US243)/year) and (3) treating everyone with pitavastatin 2 mg/day (drug cost 8182 Baht ($US263)/year). Direct medical costs and quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs) were assigned in annual cycles over a 20‐year time horizon and discounted at 3% per year. We assumed the Thai healthcare sector perspective. Results: Pravastatin was estimated to be less effective and less cost‐effective than pitavastatin and was therefore dominated (extended) by pitavastatin. Patients receiving pitavastatin accumulated 0.042 additional QALYs compared with those not using a statin, at an extra cost of 96,442 Baht ($US3095), giving an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio of 2,300,000 Baht ($US73,812)/QALY gained. These findings were sensitive to statin costs and statin efficacy, pill burden, and targeting of PLHIV based on CVD risk. At a willingness‐to‐pay threshold of 160,000 Baht ($US5135)/QALY gained, we estimated that pravastatin would become cost‐effective at an annual cost of 415 Baht ($US13.30)/year and pitavastatin would become cost‐effective at an annual cost of 600 Baht ($US19.30)/year. Conclusions: Neither pravastatin nor pitavastatin were projected to be cost‐effective for the primary prevention of CVD among PLHIV in Thailand who are not currently using lipid‐lowering therapy. We do not recommend expanding current use of these drugs among PLHIV in Thailand without substantial price reduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]