Dataset Information

Should health insurers target prevention of cardiovascular disease? A cost-effectiveness analysis of an individualised programme in Germany based on routine data.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cardiovascular diseases are the main cause of death worldwide, making their prevention a major health care challenge. In 2006, a German statutory health insurance company presented a novel individualised prevention programme (KardioPro), which focused on coronary heart disease (CHD) screening, risk factor assessment, early detection and secondary prevention. This study evaluates KardioPro in CHD risk subgroups, and analyses the cost-effectiveness of different individualised prevention strategies.

Methods

The CHD risk subgroups were assembled based on routine data from the statutory health insurance company, making use of a quasi-beta regression model for risk prediction. The control group was selected via propensity score matching based on logistic regression and an approximate nearest neighbour approach. The main outcome was cost-effectiveness. Effectiveness was measured as event-free time, and events were defined as myocardial infarction, stroke and death. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios comparing participants with non-participants were calculated for each subgroup. To assess the uncertainty of results, a bootstrapping approach was applied.

Results

The cost-effectiveness of KardioPro in the group at high risk of CHD was € 20,901 per event-free year; in the medium-risk group, € 52,323 per event-free year; in the low-risk group, € 186,074 per event-free year; and in the group with known CHD, € 26,456 per event-free year. KardioPro was associated with a significant health gain but also a significant cost increase. However, statistical significance could not be shown for all subgroups.

Conclusion

The cost-effectiveness of KardioPro differs substantially according to the group being targeted. Depending on the willingness-to-pay, it may be reasonable to only offer KardioPro to patients at high risk of further cardiovascular events. This high-risk group could be identified from routine statutory health insurance data. However, the long-term consequences of KardioPro still need to be evaluated.

SUBMITTER: Aljutaili M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4086686 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Should health insurers target prevention of cardiovascular disease? A cost-effectiveness analysis of an individualised programme in Germany based on routine data.

Aljutaili Majed M Becker Christian C Witt Sabine S Holle Rolf R Leidl Reiner R Block Michael M Brachmann Johannes J Silber Sigmund S Bestehorn Kurt K Stollenwerk Björn B

BMC health services research 20140617

<h4>Background</h4>Cardiovascular diseases are the main cause of death worldwide, making their prevention a major health care challenge. In 2006, a German statutory health insurance company presented a novel individualised prevention programme (KardioPro), which focused on coronary heart disease (CHD) screening, risk factor assessment, early detection and secondary prevention. This study evaluates KardioPro in CHD risk subgroups, and analyses the cost-effectiveness of different individualised pr ...[more]

PMID: 24938674

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionLow back pain (LBP) is recognised globally as a prevalent, costly and disabling condition. Recurrences are common and contribute to much of the burden of LBP. Current evidence favours exercise and education for prevention of LBP recurrence, but an optimal intervention has not yet been established. Walking is a simple, widely accessible, low-cost intervention that has yet to be evaluated. This randomised controlled trial (RCT) aims to establish the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a progressive and individualised walking and education programme (intervention) for the prevention of LBP recurrences in adults compared with no treatment (control).Methods and analysisA pragmatic, two-armed RCT comparing walking and education (n=349) with a no treatment control group (n=349). Inclusion criteria are adults recovered from an episode of non-specific LBP within the last 6 months. Those allocated to the intervention group will receive six sessions (three face to face and three telephone delivered) with a trained physiotherapist to facilitate a progressive walking programme and education over a 6-month period. The primary outcome will be days to first recurrence of an episode of activity-limiting LBP. The secondary outcomes include days to recurrence of an episode of LBP, days to recurrence of an episode of LBP leading to care seeking, disability and quality of life measured at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months and costs associated with LBP recurrence. All participants will be followed up monthly for a minimum of 12 months. The primary intention-to-treat analysis will assess difference in survival curves (days to recurrence) using the log-rank statistic. The cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted from the societal perspective.Ethics and disseminationApproved by Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 5201949218164, May 2019). Findings will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.Trial registration numberACTRN12619001134112.

Project description:ImportanceIn the Canakinumab Anti-inflammatory Thrombosis Outcome Study (CANTOS) trial, the anti-inflammatory monoclonal antibody canakinumab significantly reduced the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with previous myocardial infarction (MI) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) levels of 2 mg/L or greater.ObjectiveTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of adding canakinumab to standard of care for the secondary prevention of major cardiovascular events over a range of potential prices.Design, setting, and participantsA state-transition Markov model was constructed to estimate costs and outcomes over a lifetime horizon by projecting rates of recurrent MI, coronary revascularization, infection, and lung cancer with and without canakinumab treatment. We used a US health care sector perspective, and the base case used the current US market price of canakinumab of $73 000 per year. A hypothetical cohort of patients after MI aged 61 years with an hs-CRP level of 2 mg/L or greater was constructed.InterventionsCanakinumab, 150 mg, administered every 3 months plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone.Main outcomes and measuresLifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), discounted at 3% annually.ResultsAdding canakinumab to standard of care increased life expectancy from 11.31 to 11.36 years, QALYs from 9.37 to 9.50, and costs from $242 000 to $1 074 000, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $6.4 million per QALY gained. The price would have to be reduced by more than 98% (to $1150 per year or less) to meet the $100 000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. These results were generally robust across alternative assumptions, eg, substantially lower health-related quality of life after recurrent cardiovascular events, lower infection rates while receiving canakinumab, and reduced all-cause mortality while receiving canakinumab. Including a potential beneficial effect of canakinumab on lung cancer incidence improved the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to $3.5 million per QALY gained. A strategy of continuing canakinumab selectively in patients with reduction in hs-CRP levels to less than 2 mg/L would have a cost-effectiveness ratio of $819 000 per QALY gained.Conclusions and relevanceCanakinumab is not cost-effective at current US prices for prevention of recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with a prior MI. Substantial price reductions would be needed for canakinumab to be considered cost-effective.

Project description:Background: Aiming to contribute to prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), the National Health Service (NHS) Health Check programme has been implemented across England since 2009. The programme involves cardiovascular risk stratification-at 5-year intervals-of all adults between the ages of 40 and 74 years, excluding any with preexisting vascular conditions (including CVD, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension, among others), and offers treatment to those at high risk. However, the cost-effectiveness and equity of population CVD screening is contested. This study aimed to determine whether the NHS Health Check programme is cost-effective and equitable in a city with high levels of deprivation and CVD.Methods and findings: IMPACTNCD is a dynamic stochastic microsimulation policy model, calibrated to Liverpool demographics, risk factor exposure, and CVD epidemiology. Using local and national data, as well as drawing on health and social care disease costs and health-state utilities, we modelled 5 scenarios from 2017 to 2040: Scenario (A): continuing current implementation of NHS Health Check;Scenario (B): implementation 'targeted' toward areas in the most deprived quintile with increased coverage and uptake;Scenario (C): 'optimal' implementation assuming optimal coverage, uptake, treatment, and lifestyle change;Scenario (D): scenario A combined with structural population-wide interventions targeting unhealthy diet and smoking;Scenario (E): scenario B combined with the structural interventions as above. We compared all scenarios with a counterfactual of no-NHS Health Check. Compared with no-NHS Health Check, the model estimated cumulative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (discounted £/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) to be 11,000 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] -270,000 to 320,000) for scenario A, 1,500 (-91,000 to 100,000) for scenario B, -2,400 (-6,500 to 5,700) for scenario C, -5,100 (-7,400 to -3,200) for scenario D, and -5,000 (-7,400 to -3,100) for scenario E. Overall, scenario A is unlikely to become cost-effective or equitable, and scenario B is likely to become cost-effective by 2040 and equitable by 2039. Scenario C is likely to become cost-effective by 2030 and cost-saving by 2040. Scenarios D and E are likely to be cost-saving by 2021 and 2023, respectively, and equitable by 2025. The main limitation of the analysis is that we explicitly modelled CVD and diabetes mellitus only.Conclusions: According to our analysis of the situation in Liverpool, current NHS Health Check implementation appears neither equitable nor cost-effective. Optimal implementation is likely to be cost-saving but not equitable, while targeted implementation is likely to be both. Adding structural policies targeting cardiovascular risk factors could substantially improve equity and generate cost savings.

Project description:BackgroundCardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death worldwide. Like many countries, Australia is currently changing its guidelines for cardiovascular disease prevention from drug treatment for everyone with 'high blood pressure' or 'high cholesterol', to prevention based on a patient's absolute risk. In this research, we model cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular disease prevention with blood pressure and lipid drugs in Australia under three different scenarios: (1) the true current practice in Australia; (2) prevention as intended under the current guidelines; and (3) prevention according to proposed absolute risk levels. We consider the implications of changing to absolute risk-based cardiovascular disease prevention, for the health of the Australian people and for Government health sector expenditure over the long term.MethodsWe evaluate cost-effectiveness of statins, diuretics, ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers and beta-blockers, for Australian men and women, aged 35 to 84 years, who have never experienced a heart disease or stroke event. Epidemiological changes and health care costs are simulated by age and sex in a discrete time Markov model, to determine total impacts on population health and health sector costs over the lifetime, from which we derive cost-effectiveness ratios in 2008 Australian dollars per quality-adjusted life year.ResultsCardiovascular disease prevention based on absolute risk is more cost-effective than prevention under the current guidelines based on single risk factor thresholds, and is more cost-effective than the current practice, which does not follow current clinical guidelines. Recommending blood pressure-lowering drugs to everyone with at least 5% absolute risk and statin drugs to everyone with at least 10% absolute risk, can achieve current levels of population health, while saving $5.4 billion for the Australian Government over the lifetime of the population. But savings could be as high as $7.1 billion if Australia could match the cheaper price of statin drugs in New Zealand.ConclusionsChanging to absolute risk-based cardiovascular disease prevention is highly recommended for reducing health sector spending, but the Australian Government must also consider measures to reduce the cost of statin drugs, over and above the legislated price cuts of November 2010.

Dataset Information

Should health insurers target prevention of cardiovascular disease? A cost-effectiveness analysis of an individualised programme in Germany based on routine data.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Should health insurers target prevention of cardiovascular disease? A cost-effectiveness analysis of an individualised programme in Germany based on routine data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets