Abstract Background: There is no head-to-head trial comparing rosuvastatin 5 mg and atorvastatin 20 mg for the treatment of dyslipidemia. There is considerable cost difference between the two therapies and in a country where out-of-pocket expenditure is high, we plan to compare the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin 5 mg and atorvastatin 20 mg in patients with dyslipidemia. Materials and Methods: We compared rosuvastatin 5 mg ( n = 33) with atorvastatin 20 mg ( n = 31) in adult (>18 years), newly diagnosed, treatment naive patients visiting medicine outpatient department who are eligible for statin therapy. Both the drugs were administered once daily. Lipid profile was done at baseline and after 6 weeks of therapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage change from baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels after 6 weeks. Results: Sixty-four patients completed the study. Both treatments resulted in a significant reduction from baseline in LDL-C, total cholesterol (TC), and triglycerides (TGs). The percentage reduction in TC, LDL-C, and TGs was 27%, 37%, and 21% in rosuvastatin group as compared to 30%, 39%, and 25% in the atorvastatin group, respectively. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that atorvastatin costs twice as that of rosuvastatin for the same amount of benefit. Conclusions: The study found both the treatments are comparable in terms of safety and efficacy. The higher cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin 5 mg as compared to atorvastatin 20 mg, makes the former preferred initial treatment of dyslipidemia.
Sharma et al. (2026) studied this question.