In a base case population of 100,000 patients with no history of cardiovascular disease, no hyperlipidaemia, elevated hsCRP levels and Framingham risk more than 20%, the analysis associated no active treatment with 1,304,320 life-years, 982,048 QALYs and SEK 168,490,000 and rosuvastatin with 1,341,185 life-years, 1,024,170 QALYs and SEK 146,313,000 (an estimated gain of 42,122 QALYs and 36,865 life-years with rosuvastatin and a saving of SEK 22,177). Rosuvastatin was dominant as it saved costs and led to health benefits over no active treatment.
The same conclusion was reached in the secondary analysis that considered the whole JUPITER population and in the sensitivity analyses. The most influential input was the cost of treatment for cardiovascular disease events.
Changes in model parameters did not alter the conclusions of the analysis and rosuvastatin remained either dominant or highly cost-effective in all cases. Reducing the time-horizon of the analysis led to a reduction in the value for money of rosuvastatin, but it remained cost-effective at a 10-year time horizon. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that rosuvastatin had a 100% likelihood of being cost-effective even at a very low willingness to pay threshold of SEK 25,000 per QALY.