Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control.

ABSTRACT: In the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), adults at high risk for cardiovascular disease who received intensive systolic blood-pressure control (target, <120 mm Hg) had significantly lower rates of death and cardiovascular disease events than did those who received standard control (target, <140 mm Hg). On the basis of these data, we wanted to determine the lifetime health benefits and health care costs associated with intensive control versus standard control.We used a microsimulation model to apply SPRINT treatment effects and health care costs from national sources to a hypothetical cohort of SPRINT-eligible adults. The model projected lifetime costs of treatment and monitoring in patients with hypertension, cardiovascular disease events and subsequent treatment costs, treatment-related risks of serious adverse events and subsequent costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for intensive control versus standard control of systolic blood pressure.We determined that the mean number of QALYs would be 0.27 higher among patients who received intensive control than among those who received standard control and would cost approximately $47,000 more per QALY gained if there were a reduction in adherence and treatment effects after 5 years; the cost would be approximately $28,000 more per QALY gained if the treatment effects persisted for the remaining lifetime of the patient. Most simulation results indicated that intensive treatment would be cost-effective (51 to 79% below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY and 76 to 93% below the threshold of $100,000 per QALY), regardless of whether treatment effects were reduced after 5 years or persisted for the remaining lifetime.In this simulation study, intensive systolic blood-pressure control prevented cardiovascular disease events and prolonged life and did so at levels below common willingness-to-pay thresholds per QALY, regardless of whether benefits were reduced after 5 years or persisted for the patient's remaining lifetime. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; SPRINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062 .).

SUBMITTER: Bress AP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5708850 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control.

Bress Adam P AP Bellows Brandon K BK King Jordan B JB Hess Rachel R Beddhu Srinivasan S Zhang Zugui Z Berlowitz Dan R DR Conroy Molly B MB Fine Larry L Oparil Suzanne S Morisky Donald E DE Kazis Lewis E LE Ruiz-Negrón Natalia N Powell Jamie J Tamariz Leonardo L Whittle Jeff J Wright Jackson T JT Supiano Mark A MA Cheung Alfred K AK Weintraub William S WS Moran Andrew E AE

The New England journal of medicine 20170801 8

<h4>Background</h4>In the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), adults at high risk for cardiovascular disease who received intensive systolic blood-pressure control (target, <120 mm Hg) had significantly lower rates of death and cardiovascular disease events than did those who received standard control (target, <140 mm Hg). On the basis of these data, we wanted to determine the lifetime health benefits and health care costs associated with intensive control versus standard contro ...[more]

PMID: 28834469

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceOlder patients with hypertension receiving intensive systolic blood pressure control (110-130 mm Hg) have lower incidences of cardiovascular events than those receiving standard control (130-150 mm Hg). Nevertheless, the mortality reduction is insignificant, and intensive blood pressure management results in more medical costs from treatments and subsequent adverse events.ObjectiveTo examine the incremental lifetime outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of intensive vs standard blood pressure control in older patients with hypertension from the health care payer's perspective.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic analysis was conducted with a Markov model to examine the cost-effectiveness of intensive blood pressure management among patients aged 60 to 80 years with hypertension. Treatment outcome data from the Trial of Intensive Blood-Pressure Control in Older Patients With Hypertension (STEP trial) and different cardiovascular risk assessment models for a hypothetical cohort of STEP-eligible patients were used. Costs and utilities were obtained from published sources. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) against the willingness-to-pay threshold was used to evaluate whether the management was cost-effective. Extensive sensitivity, subgroup, and scenario analyses were performed to address uncertainty. The US and UK population using race-specific cardiovascular risk models were conducted in the generalizability analysis. Data for the STEP trial were collected from February 10 to March 10, 2022, and were analyzed for the present study from March 10 to May 15, 2022.InterventionsHypertension treatments with a systolic blood pressure target of 110 to 130 mm Hg or 130 to 150 mm Hg.Main outcomes and measuresIncremental lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and ICER are discounted at the given rates annually.ResultsAfter simulating 10 000 STEP-eligible patients assumed to be 66 years of age (4650 men [46.5%] and 5350 women [53.5%]) in the model, the ICER values were ¥51 675 ($12 362) per QALY gained in China, $25 417 per QALY gained in the US, and £4679 ($7004) per QALY gained in the UK. Simulations projected that the intensive management in China being cost-effective were 94.3% and 100% below the willingness-to-pay thresholds of 1 time (¥89 300 [$21 364]/QALY) and 3 times (¥267 900 [$64 090]/QALY) the gross domestic product per capita, respectively. The US had 86.9% and 95.6% probabilities of cost-effectiveness at $50 000/QALY and $100 000/QALY, respectively, and the UK had 99.1% and 100% of probabilities of cost-effectiveness at £20 000 ($29 940)/QALY and £30 000 ($44 910)/QALY, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceIn this economic evaluation, the intensive systolic blood pressure control in older patients produced fewer cardiovascular events and had acceptable costs per QALY gained, well below the typical willingness-to-pay thresholds. The cost-effective advantages of intensive blood pressure management in older patients were consistent over various clinical scenarios across different countries.

Project description:BackgroundIn a previously reported randomized trial of standard and intensive systolic blood-pressure control, data on some outcome events had yet to be adjudicated and post-trial follow-up data had not yet been collected.MethodsWe randomly assigned 9361 participants who were at increased risk for cardiovascular disease but did not have diabetes or previous stroke to adhere to an intensive treatment target (systolic blood pressure, <120 mm Hg) or a standard treatment target (systolic blood pressure, <140 mm Hg). The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. Additional primary outcome events occurring through the end of the intervention period (August 20, 2015) were adjudicated after data lock for the primary analysis. We also analyzed post-trial observational follow-up data through July 29, 2016.ResultsAt a median of 3.33 years of follow-up, the rate of the primary outcome and all-cause mortality during the trial were significantly lower in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group (rate of the primary outcome, 1.77% per year vs. 2.40% per year; hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.86; all-cause mortality, 1.06% per year vs. 1.41% per year; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.92). Serious adverse events of hypotension, electrolyte abnormalities, acute kidney injury or failure, and syncope were significantly more frequent in the intensive-treatment group. When trial and post-trial follow-up data were combined (3.88 years in total), similar patterns were found for treatment benefit and adverse events; however, rates of heart failure no longer differed between the groups.ConclusionsAmong patients who were at increased cardiovascular risk, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg resulted in lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and lower all-cause mortality than targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg, both during receipt of the randomly assigned therapy and after the trial. Rates of some adverse events were higher in the intensive-treatment group. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; SPRINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062.).

Project description:Importance:Among high-risk patients with hypertension, targeting a systolic blood pressure of 120 mm Hg reduces cardiovascular morbidity and mortality compared with a higher target. However, intensive blood pressure management incurs additional costs from treatment and from adverse events. Objective:To evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of intensive blood pressure management compared with standard management. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cost-effectiveness analysis conducted from September 2015 to August 2016 used a Markov cohort model to estimate cost-effectiveness of intensive blood pressure management among 68-year-old high-risk adults with hypertension but not diabetes. We used the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) to estimate treatment effects and adverse event rates. We used Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Life Tables to project age- and cause-specific mortality, calibrated to rates reported in SPRINT. We also used population-based observational data to model development of heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and subsequent mortality. Costs were based on published sources, Medicare data, and the National Inpatient Sample. Interventions:Treatment of hypertension to a systolic blood pressure goal of 120 mm Hg (intensive management) or 140 mm Hg (standard management). Main Outcomes and Measures:Lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), discounted at 3% annually. Results:Standard management yielded 9.6 QALYs and accrued $155?261 in lifetime costs, while intensive management yielded 10.5 QALYs and accrued $176?584 in costs. Intensive blood pressure management cost $23?777 per QALY gained. In a sensitivity analysis, serious adverse events would need to occur at 3 times the rate observed in SPRINT and be 3 times more common in the intensive management arm to prefer standard management. Conclusions and Relevance:Intensive blood pressure management is cost-effective at typical thresholds for value in health care and remains so even with substantially higher adverse event rates.

Project description:BackgroundSubcortical microvascular disease represented by brain white matter hyperintensity on magnetic resonance imaging is associated with functional decline in older people with hypertension. The effects of 2 levels of 24-hour average systolic blood pressure (BP) on mobility, white matter disease progression, and cognitive function over 3 years were studied.MethodsThis trial was a prospective, randomized, blinded end-points study in patients ≥75 years of age with systolic hypertension and magnetic resonance imaging evidence of white matter hyperintensity lesions. Patients were randomized to a 24-hour mean systolic BP of ≤130 mm Hg (intensive treatment) versus ≤145 mm Hg (standard treatment) with antihypertensive therapies. Primary study outcomes were changes in mobility (gait speed) and accrual of white matter hyperintensity volume after 3 years. Changes in cognitive function (executive processing) and adverse events were also evaluated.ResultsIn 199 randomized patients, the mean age of the cohort was 80.5 years, and 54% were women; the average 24-hour systolic BP was 149 mm Hg. Goal BPs were achieved after a median treatment period of 3 to 4 months; at that time, the mean 24-hour systolic BP was 127.7 mm Hg in the intensive treatment group and 144.0 mm Hg in the standard treatment group for an average difference of 16.3 mm Hg. Changes in gait speed were not different between treatment groups (0.40±2.0 versus 0.42±2.7 s in the intensive treatment and standard treatment groups, respectively; P=0.91), whereas changes from baseline in white matter hyperintensity volumes were smaller (0.29%) in the intensive treatment group compared with the standard treatment group (0.48%; P=0.03). Cognitive outcomes also were not different between the treatment groups. Major adverse cardiovascular events were higher in the standard treatment group compared with the intensive treatment group (17 versus 4 patients; P=0.01). Falls, with or without injury, and syncope were comparable in the treatment groups.ConclusionsIntensive lowering of ambulatory BP reduction in older patients with hypertension did not result in differences in mobility outcomes but was associated with a reduction in accrual of subcortical white matter disease. Over periods >3 years, a reduction in the accumulation of white matter disease may be a factor in conserving function.Clinical trial registrationURL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01650402.

Project description:ImportanceThe effect of intensive blood pressure lowering on brain health remains uncertain.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of intensive blood pressure treatment with cerebral white matter lesion and brain volumes.Design, setting, and participantsA substudy of a multicenter randomized clinical trial of hypertensive adults 50 years or older without a history of diabetes or stroke at 27 sites in the United States. Randomization began on November 8, 2010. The overall trial was stopped early because of benefit for its primary outcome (a composite of cardiovascular events) and all-cause mortality on August 20, 2015. Brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed on a subset of participants at baseline (n = 670) and at 4 years of follow-up (n = 449); final follow-up date was July 1, 2016.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to a systolic blood pressure (SBP) goal of either less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment, n = 355) or less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment, n = 315).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was change in total white matter lesion volume from baseline. Change in total brain volume was a secondary outcome.ResultsAmong 670 recruited patients who had baseline MRI (mean age, 67.3 [SD, 8.2] years; 40.4% women), 449 (67.0%) completed the follow-up MRI at a median of 3.97 years after randomization, after a median intervention period of 3.40 years. In the intensive treatment group, based on a robust linear mixed model, mean white matter lesion volume increased from 4.57 to 5.49 cm3 (difference, 0.92 cm3 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.14]) vs an increase from 4.40 to 5.85 cm3 (difference, 1.45 cm3 [95% CI, 1.21 to 1.70]) in the standard treatment group (between-group difference in change, -0.54 cm3 [95% CI, -0.87 to -0.20]). Mean total brain volume decreased from 1134.5 to 1104.0 cm3 (difference, -30.6 cm3 [95% CI, -32.3 to -28.8]) in the intensive treatment group vs a decrease from 1134.0 to 1107.1 cm3 (difference, -26.9 cm3 [95% CI, 24.8 to 28.8]) in the standard treatment group (between-group difference in change, -3.7 cm3 [95% CI, -6.3 to -1.1]).Conclusions and relevanceAmong hypertensive adults, targeting an SBP of less than 120 mm Hg, compared with less than 140 mm Hg, was significantly associated with a smaller increase in cerebral white matter lesion volume and a greater decrease in total brain volume, although the differences were small.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.

Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control.

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets