Is It Cost-Effective To Vaccinate Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Against Influenza Virus?

Abstract

The outcome of interest was the cost-effectiveness results of statins reported in the studies. In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, two reviewers independently screened the title, abstract, and full-text articles. From the selected studies, data were extracted independently by two reviewers, and discrepancies were discussed with a third reviewer to reach consensus. Results: After removing duplicates and irrelevant articles, we identified a total of 283 articles; of these, 16 articles met our inclusion criteria. Nine studies compared statins with placebo or no treatment in their economic evaluations while seven studies evaluated cost-effectiveness between different statins. Statins (simvastatin, atorvastatin, and rosuvastatin) were considered to be cost-effective compared with placebo or no treatment in some countries. However, one study found pravastatin to be cost-ineffective compared with no treatment for primary prevention of coronary artery disease. Atorvastatin has consistently been reported as cost-effective compared with simvastatin. Mixed results were reported regarding the cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin compared with atorvastatin: two studies found rosuvastatin could be economically more favorable than atorvastatin while one study reported the opposite findings. ConClusions: Most statins were found to be cost-effective compared with placebo or no treatment. In addition, some statins were found economically favorable over other statins. Notably, these cost-effectiveness results should be interpreted with the consideration of the specific healthcare settings where statins were placed for their economic evaluations.