Dataset Information

Using stress testing to guide primary prevention of coronary heart disease among intermediate-risk patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

ABSTRACT: Noninvasive stress testing might guide the use of aspirin and statins for primary prevention of coronary heart disease, but it is unclear if such a strategy would be cost effective.We compared the status quo, in which the current national use of aspirin and statins was simulated, with 3 other strategies: (1) full implementation of Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines, (2) a treat-all strategy in which all intermediate-risk persons received statins (men and women) and aspirin (men only), and (3) a test-and-treat strategy in which all persons with an intermediate risk of coronary heart disease underwent stress testing and those with a positive test were treated with high-intensity statins (men and women) and aspirin (men only). Healthcare costs, coronary heart disease events, and quality-adjusted life years from 2011 to 2040 were projected. Under a variety of assumptions, the treat-all strategy was the most effective and least expensive strategy. Stress electrocardiography was more effective and less expensive than other test-and-treat strategies, but it was less expensive than treat all only if statin cost exceeded $3.16/pill or if testing increased adherence from <22% to >75%. However, stress electrocardiography could be cost effective in persons initially nonadherent to the treat-all strategy if it raised their adherence to 5% and cost saving if it raised their adherence to 13%.When generic high-potency statins are available, noninvasive cardiac stress testing to target preventive medications is not cost effective unless it substantially improves adherence.

SUBMITTER: Galper BZ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3265963 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Using stress testing to guide primary prevention of coronary heart disease among intermediate-risk patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Galper Benjamin Z BZ Moran Andrew A Coxson Pamela G PG Pletcher Mark J MJ Heidenreich Paul P Lazar Lawrence D LD Rodondi Nicolas N Wang Y Claire YC Goldman Lee L

Circulation 20111205 2

<h4>Background</h4>Noninvasive stress testing might guide the use of aspirin and statins for primary prevention of coronary heart disease, but it is unclear if such a strategy would be cost effective.<h4>Methods and results</h4>We compared the status quo, in which the current national use of aspirin and statins was simulated, with 3 other strategies: (1) full implementation of Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines, (2) a treat-all strategy in which all intermediate-risk persons received statins ( ...[more]

PMID: 22144567

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Statins are effective in the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline expands recommended statin use, but its cost-effectiveness has not been compared with other guidelines. METHODS:We used the Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the ACC/AHA guideline relative to current use, Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines, and universal statin use in all men 45 to 74 years of age and women 55 to 74 years of age over a 10-year horizon from 2016 to 2025. Sensitivity analyses varied costs, risks, and benefits. Main outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and numbers needed to treat for 10 years per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RESULTS:Each approach produces substantial benefits and net cost savings relative to the status quo. Full adherence to the Adult Treatment Panel III guideline would result in 8.8 million more statin users than the status quo, at a number needed to treat for 10 years per quality-adjusted life-year gained of 35. The ACC/AHA guideline would potentially result in up to 12.3 million more statin users than the Adult Treatment Panel III guideline, with a marginal number needed to treat for 10 years per quality-adjusted life-year gained of 68. Moderate-intensity statin use in all men 45 to 74 years of age and women 55 to 74 years of age would result in 28.9 million more statin users than the ACC/AHA guideline, with a marginal number needed to treat for 10 years per quality-adjusted life-year gained of 108. In all cases, benefits would be greater in men than women. Results vary moderately with different risk thresholds for instituting statins and statin toxicity estimates but depend greatly on the disutility caused by daily medication use (pill burden). CONCLUSIONS:At a population level, the ACC/AHA guideline for expanded statin use for primary prevention is projected to treat more people, to save more lives, and to cost less compared with Adult Treatment Panel III in both men and women. Whether individuals benefit from long-term statin use for primary prevention depends more on the disutility associated with pill burden than their degree of cardiovascular risk.

Project description:BackgroundThe Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) showed that the addition of coronary artery calcium (CAC) to traditional risk factors improves risk classification, particularly in intermediate risk asymptomatic patients with LDL cholesterol levels <160 mg/dL. However, the cost-effectiveness of incorporating CAC into treatment decision rules has yet to be clearly delineated.ObjectiveTo model the cost-effectiveness of CAC for cardiovascular risk stratification in asymptomatic, intermediate risk patients not taking a statin. Treatment based on CAC was compared to (1) treatment of all intermediate-risk patients, and (2) treatment on the basis of United States guidelines.MethodsWe developed a Markov model of first coronary heart disease (CHD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. We modeled statin treatment in intermediate risk patients with CAC≥1 and CAC≥100, with different intensities of statins based on the CAC score. We compared these CAC-based treatment strategies to a "treat all" strategy and to treatment according to the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) guidelines. Clinical and economic outcomes were modeled over both five- and ten-year time horizons. Outcomes consisted of CHD and CVD events and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses considered the effect of higher event rates, different CAC and statin costs, indirect costs, and re-scanning patients with incidentalomas.ResultsWe project that it is both cost-saving and more effective to scan intermediate-risk patients for CAC and to treat those with CAC≥1, compared to treatment based on established risk-assessment guidelines. Treating patients with CAC≥100 is also preferred to existing guidelines when we account for statin side effects and the disutility of statin use.ConclusionCompared to the alternatives we assessed, CAC testing is both effective and cost saving as a risk-stratification tool, particularly if there are adverse effects of long-term statin use. CAC may enable providers to better tailor preventive therapy to patients' risks of CVD.

Project description:ObjectiveHIV genotype-resistance testing can help identify more effective antiretroviral treatment (ART) regimens for patients, substantially increasing the likelihood of viral suppression and immune recovery. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of genotype-resistance testing before first-line ART initiation in Brazil.DesignWe used a previously published microsimulation model of HIV disease (CEPAC-International) and data from Brazil to compare the clinical impact, costs, and cost-effectiveness of initial genotype testing (Genotype) with no initial genotype testing (No genotype).MethodsModel parameters were derived from the HIV Clinical Cohort at the Evandro Chagas Clinical Research Institute and from published data, using Brazilian sources whenever possible. Baseline patient characteristics included 69% male, mean age of 36 years (SD, 10 years), mean CD4 count of 347 per microliter (SD, 300/µL) at ART initiation, annual ART costs from 2012 US $1400 to US $13,400, genotype test cost of US $230, and primary resistance prevalence of 4.4%. Life expectancy and costs were discounted 3% per year. Genotype was defined as "cost-effective" compared with No Genotype if its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than 3 times the 2012 Brazilian per capita GDP of US $12,300.ResultsCompared with No genotype, Genotype increased life expectancy from 18.45 to 18.47 years and reduced lifetime cost from US $45,000 to $44,770; thus, in the base case, Genotype was cost saving. Genotype was cost-effective at primary resistance prevalence as low as 1.4% and remained cost-effective when subsequent-line ART costs decreased to 30% of baseline value. Cost-inefficient results were observed only when simultaneously holding multiple parameters to extremes of their plausible ranges.ConclusionsGenotype-resistance testing in ART-naive individuals in Brazil will improve survival and decrease costs and should be incorporated into HIV treatment guidelines in Brazil.

Project description:BackgroundParticipation in coronary heart disease (CHD) secondary prevention programs is low. Telephone-delivered CHD secondary prevention programs may overcome the treatment gap. The telephone-based health coaching ProActive Heart trial intervention has previously been shown to be effective for improving health-related quality of life, physical activity, body mass index, diet, alcohol intake and anxiety. As a secondary aim, the current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the ProActive Heart intervention compared to usual care.Methods430 adult myocardial infarction patients were randomised to a six-month CHD secondary prevention 'health coaching' intervention or 'usual care' control group. Primary outcome variables were health-related quality of life (SF-36) and physical activity (Active Australia Survey). Data were collected at baseline, six-months (post-intervention) and 12 months (six-months post-intervention completion) for longer term effects. Cost-effectiveness data [health utility (SF-6D) and health care utilisation] were collected using self-reported (general practitioner, specialist, other health professionals, health services, and medication) and claims data (hospitalisation rates). Intervention effects are presented as mean differences (95% CI), p-value.ResultsImprovements in health status (SF-6D) were observed in both groups, with no significant difference between the groups at six [0.012 (-0.016, 0.041), p?=?0.372] or 12 months [0.011 (-0.028, 0.051) p?=?0.738]. Patients in the health coaching group were significantly more likely to be admitted to hospital due to causes unrelated to cardiovascular disease (p?=?0.042). The overall cost for the health coaching group was higher ($10,574 vs. $8,534, p?=?0.021), mainly due to higher hospitalisation (both CHD and non-CHD) costs ($6,841 vs. $4,984, p?=?0.036). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $85,423 per QALY.ConclusionsThere was no intervention effect measured using the SF-36/SF-6D and ProActive Heart resulted in significantly increased costs. The cost per QALY gained from ProActive Heart was high and above acceptable limits compared to usual care.

Dataset Information

Using stress testing to guide primary prevention of coronary heart disease among intermediate-risk patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Publications

Using stress testing to guide primary prevention of coronary heart disease among intermediate-risk patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets