 |
 |

Cholesterol-Reduction Intervention Study (CRIS)A Randomized Trial to Assess Effectiveness and Costs in Clinical Practice
Gerry Oster, PhD;
Gerald M. Borok, PhD;
Joseph Menzin, PhD;
Joseph F. Heyse, PhD;
Robert S. Epstein, MD, MS;
Virginia Quinn, MPH;
Victor Benson, MD;
R. James Dudl, MD;
Arnold M. Epstein, MD, MA
Arch Intern Med. 1996;156(7):731-739.
Abstract
Background The 1988 US National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel Report recommended initial treatment with niacin or bile acid sequestrants, followed by other agents if needed, to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels in hypercholesterolemic patients who require drug therapy. It is unknown how the effectiveness and costs of such an approach ("stepped care") compare in typical clinical practice to those of initial therapy with lovastatin.
Patients and Methods We randomly assigned 612 patients, aged 20 to 70 years, who met 1988 National Cholesterol Education Program guidelines for drug treatment of elevated LDL-C level and had not previously used cholesterol-lowering medication, to either a steppedcare regimen or initial therapy with lovastatin (both n=306). The study, conducted at Southern California Kaiser Permanente, was designed to approximate typical practice: provider compliance with treatment plans was encouraged but not enforced, and patients paid for medication as they customarily would.
Results At 1 year, the decline in mean LDL-C level was significantly greater among patients assigned to initial treatment with lovastatin (22% vs 15% for stepped care; P<.001), as was the number who attained goal LDL-C level ( 4.14 mmol/L [ 160mg/dL],or 3.36mmol/L [ 130mg/dL] if coronary heart disease or two or more risk factors were present) (40% vs 24%; P<.001). The increase in mean high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels was significantly greater in the stepped-care group, however (8% vs 1% for lovastatin; P<.001). Patients who were randomized to stepped care were more likely to report substantial bother caused by side effects (30% vs 16% for lovastatin; P<.001) and discontinuation of therapy at 1 year (28% vs 18%, respectively; P<.01). Costs of care were $333 higher per patient in the lovastatin group ($786 vs $453; P<.001).
Conclusions A stepped-care regimen beginning with niacin is less costly than initial therapy with lovastatin, but also less effective in lowering LDL-C level. While it is more effective in increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, the tolerability of such a regimen may be a problem.
(Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:731-739)
Author Affiliations
From Policy Analysis Inc, Brookline, Mass (Drs Oster and Menzin); Southern California Kaiser Permanente, Pasadena (Dr Borok and Ms Quinn); Merck Research Laboratories, Blue Bell, Pa (Drs Heyse and R. Epstein); Southern California Kaiser Permanente, Harbor City, Calif (Dr Benson); Southern California Kaiser Permanente, Mission Bay, Calif (Dr Dudl); and Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (Dr A. Epstein).
CiteULike Connotea Delicious Digg Facebook Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Lifetime Health and Economic Consequences of Obesity
Thompson et al.
Arch Intern Med 1999;159:2177-2183.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Maximizing the Cost-effectiveness of Lipid-Lowering Therapy
Jacobson et al.
Arch Intern Med 1998;158:1977-1989.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Persistence of Use of Lipid-Lowering Medications: A Cross-National Study
Avorn et al.
JAMA 1998;279:1458-1462.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Pharmacoeconomics and Managed Care: Methodologic and Policy Issues
Luce
Med Decis Making 1998;18:S4-S11.
Lovastatin was more effective than stepped care in reducing cholesterol
Evid. Based Med. 1996;1:179-179.
|