A real-world analysis of adherence, biochemical outcomes, and healthcare costs in patients treated with rosuvastatin/ezetimibe as single-pill combination vs. free combination in Italy.

Abstract

Aims: To compare medication adherence, lipid goal attainment, and healthcare costs between patients receiving a single-pill combination (SPC) vs. a free combination treatment (FCT) of rosuvastatin/ezetimibe (ROS/EZE) in Italy.

Methods and results: Administrative databases of healthcare entities covering ∼7 million individuals were used to identify adults prescribed with ROS/EZE as SPC or FCT between January 2018 and June 2020. Adherence was calculated as the proportion of days covered (PDC) after cohort balancing by propensity score matching. Patients with available LDL cholesterol testing were assessed for the proportion of those who at baseline were above lipid targets recommended by ESC/EAS Guidelines for their cardiovascular risk category and reached the target during follow-up. Among 25 886 patients on SPC and 7309 on FCT, adherent patients were more represented in SPC than FCT cohort (56.8 vs. 44.5%, P < 0.001), and this difference remained significant (P < 0.001) after stratification by cardiovascular risk (very high, high, and other). The proportion of patients reaching LDL cholesterol target at 1 year follow-up was significantly (P < 0.001) higher in SPC vs. FCT cohort: 35.4 vs. 23.8% for very high cardiovascular risk, 46.9 vs. 23.1% for high risk and 71.6 vs. 49.5% for other risk. Total healthcare costs per patient at 1 year follow-up were lower in SPC vs. FCT users (2337€ vs. 1890€, P < 0.001). In both cohorts, costs were mainly driven by drug expenses and hospitalizations.

Conclusion: This real-world analysis in dyslipidaemic patients found that treatment with ROS/EZE as SPC resulted in better adherence, higher chances of reaching lipid goals, and cost savings over FCT, in all cardiovascular risk categories.