Why the study?
Statin intolerance and side effects can hinder adherence, making berberine a potential alternative, but the cost-effectiveness of statins, berberine, and their combination for primary CVD prevention has not been compared.
Does berberine alone or combined with statins improve cost-effectiveness for primary CVD prevention compared to statins or no intervention in adults aged ≥40 years without pre-existing CVD?
Does berberine alone or combined with statins improve cost-effectiveness for primary CVD prevention compared to statins or no intervention in adults aged ≥40 years without pre-existing CVD?
Statins, berberine, and their combination are cost-effective for primary CVD prevention, with berberine offering a viable alternative for statin-intolerant patients, especially if its price decreases.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Berberine may warrant exploration as statin alternative in intolerant patients; leaves open confirmation via prospective trials before practice change.
Background Statins are the cornerstone treatment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), but intolerance and side effects can hinder adherence. Berberine, with promising lipid-lowering effects and good tolerance, presents a potential alternative for statin-intolerant patients. Aim To estimate and compare the cost-effectiveness of statins, berberine, and their combined use for primary CVD prevention. Methods The Scottish CVD Policy Model was used to predict long-term health and cost outcomes in Scottish adults aged 40 years or older without pre-existing CVD. Intervention and cost inputs were sourced from published literature and health service cost data. The primary outcome measure was the lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), evaluated as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The intervention strategies of no intervention, atorvastatin 20 mg per day (“statins”), berberine 1000 mg per day (“berberine”), simvastatin 20 mg plus berberine 1500 mg per day (“combined intervention 1”) and simvastatin 20 mg plus berberine 900 mg per day (“combined intervention 2”) were analyzed for individuals with ASSIGN risk scores ≥20% and ≥10%. Results All intervention strategies were cost-effective (statins: ICER £1,260.7/QALY, 95%CI: £- 2,528.6/QALY ∼ £2,305.5/QALY; berberine: ICER £6,192.4/QALY, 95%CI: £4,655.7/QALY ∼ £11,387.0/QALY; combined intervention 1: ICER £5,506.5/QALY, 95%CI: £4,506.8/QALY ∼ £10,732.0/QALY; combined intervention 2: ICER £3,846.4/QALY, 95%CI: £3,107.0/QALY ∼ £5,270.1/QALY), compared to no intervention, at the threshold of ICER of £20,000 per QALY. Compared to statins, berberine was less cost-effective, but the combined interventions remained cost-effective (£10,198.6/QALY [95%CI: £6,740.4/QALY ∼ £58,473.3/QALY]; £6,362.8/QALY [95%CI: £5,187.7/QALY ∼ £12,499.2/QALY]) at the threshold of £20,000/QALY. Notably, when using drug costs from China (reflecting lower berberine prices), berberine and the combined interventions were preferable to statins alone. Conclusions Statins, berberine, and combined interventions are all cost-effective options for primary CVD prevention. Berberine could be considered a valuable alternative or complementary therapy, particularly if its price decreases below that of statins.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leung et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: