Dataset Information

A cost-effectiveness analysis of risk-based intervention for prevention of cardiovascular diseases in IraPEN program: A modeling study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

IraPEN, a program developed in Iran based on the World Health Organization (WHO) package of essential noncommunicable (PEN) disease interventions for primary healthcare, was launched in 2015. Preventive interventions for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are based on the level of risk calculated using the WHO CVD risk chart.

Objective

The main objective of this study was to measure the potential cost-effectiveness (CE) of IraPEN preventive actions for CVD in comparison with the status quo.

Methods

A CE analysis from a healthcare perspective was conducted. Markov models were employed for individuals with and without diabetes separately. Based on the WHO CVD risk chart, four index cohorts were constructed as low (<10%), moderate (10%-19%), high (20%-29%), and very high risk (≥30%). Life years (LY) gained and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were used as the outcome measures.

Results

The intervention yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $804, $551, and -$44 per QALY for moderate, high, and very high CVD risk in groups without diabetes, respectively. These groups gained 0.69, 0.96, and 1.45 LY, respectively, from the intervention. The results demonstrated an ICER of $711, $630, -$42, and -$71 for low, moderate, high, and very high-risk groups with diabetes, respectively, while they gained 0.46, 1.2, 2.04, and 2.29 years from the intervention.

Conclusion

The IraPEN program was highly cost-effective for all CVD risk groups in the individuals without diabetes except the low-risk group. The intervention was cost-effective for all patients with diabetes regardless of their CVD risk. The results demonstrated that the IraPEN program can likely provide substantial health benefits to Iranian individuals and cost savings to the national healthcare provider.

SUBMITTER: Jamshidi A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9999709 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A cost-effectiveness analysis of risk-based intervention for prevention of cardiovascular diseases in IraPEN program: A modeling study.

Jamshidi Amirparviz A Daroudi Rajabali R Aas Eline E Khalili Davood D

Frontiers in public health 20230224

<h4>Background</h4>IraPEN, a program developed in Iran based on the World Health Organization (WHO) package of essential noncommunicable (PEN) disease interventions for primary healthcare, was launched in 2015. Preventive interventions for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are based on the level of risk calculated using the WHO CVD risk chart.<h4>Objective</h4>The main objective of this study was to measure the potential cost-effectiveness (CE) of IraPEN preventive actions for CVD in comparison wit ...[more]

PMID: 36908421

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPolygenic risk score for coronary artery disease (CAD-PRS) improves precision in assessing the risk of cardiovascular diseases and is cost-effective in preventing cardiovascular diseases in a health system and may be cost-effective in other settings and prevention programs such as workplace cardiovascular prevention programs. Workplaces provide a conducitve environment for cardiovascular prevention interventions, but the cost-effectiveness of CAD-PRS in a workplace setting remains unknown. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of integrating CAD-PRS in a workplace cardiovascular disease prevention program compared to the standard cardiovascular workplace program without CAD-PRS and no-workplace prevention program.MethodsWe developed a cohort simulation model to project health benefits (quality-adjusted life years gained) and costs over a period of 5 years in a cohort of employees with a mean age of 50 years. The model health states reflected the risk of disease (coronary artery disease and ischemic stroke) and statin prevention therapy side effects (diabetes, hemorrhagic stroke, and myopathy). We considered medical and lost productivity costs. Data were obtained from the literature, and the analysis was performed from a self-insured employer perspective with future costs and quality-adjusted life years discounted at 3% annually. Uncertainty in model parameter inputs was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Three programs were compared: (1) a workplace cardiovascular program that integrated CAD-PRS with the pooled cohort equation-a standard of care for assessing the risk of cardiovascular diseases (CardioriskSCORE); (2) a workplace cardiovascular prevention program without CAD-PRS (Standard-WHP); and (3) no-workplace health program (No-WHP). The main outcomes were total costs (US $2019), incremental costs, incremental quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.ResultsCardioriskSCORE lowered employer costs ($53 and $575) and improved employee quality-adjusted life years (0.001 and 0.005) per employee screened compared to Standard-WHP and No-WHP, respectively. The effectiveness of statin prevention therapy, employees' baseline cardiovascular risk, the proportion of employees that enrolled in the program, and statin adherence had the largest effect size on the incremental net monetary benefit. However, despite the variation in parameter input values, base case results remained robust.ConclusionPolygenic testing in a workplace cardiovascular prevention program improves employees' quality of life and simultaneously lowers health costs and productivity monetary loss for employers.

Project description:BackgroundRural women experience health disparities in terms of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk compared to urban women. Cost-effective CVD-prevention programs are needed for this population. The objective of this study was to conduct cost analysis and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of the Strong Hearts, Healthy Communities (SHHC) program compared to a control program in terms of change in CVD risk factors, including body weight and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).MethodsSixteen medically underserved rural towns in Montana and New York were randomly assigned to SHHC, a six-month twice-weekly experiential learning lifestyle program focused predominantly on diet and physical activity behaviors (n = 101), or a monthly healthy lifestyle education-only control program (n = 93). Females who were sedentary, overweight or obese, and aged 40 years or older were enrolled. The cost analysis calculated the total and per participant resource costs as well as participants' costs for the SHHC and control programs. In the intermediate health outcomes CEAs, the incremental costs were compared to the incremental changes in the outcomes. The QALY CEA compares the incremental costs and effectiveness of a national SHHC intervention for a hypothetical cohort of 2.2 million women compared to the status quo alternative.ResultsThe resource cost of SHHC was $775 per participant. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from the payer's perspective was $360 per kg of weight loss. Over a 10-year time horizon, to avert per QALY lost SHHC is estimated to cost $238,271 from the societal perspective, but only $62,646 from the healthcare sector perspective. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses show considerable uncertainty in the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.ConclusionsA national SHHC intervention is likely to be cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds based on guidelines for federal regulatory impact analysis, but may not be at commonly used lower threshold values. However, it is possible that program costs in rural areas are higher than previously studied programs in more urban areas, due to a lack of staff and physical activity resources as well as availability for partnerships with existing organizations.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02499731 , registered on July 16, 2015.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Considering the scarcity of health care resources and the high costs associated with cardiovascular diseases, we investigated the spending on cardiovascular primary preventive activities and the prescribing behaviour of primary preventive cardiovascular medication (PPCM) in Dutch family practices (FPs). METHODS: A mixed methods design was used, which consisted of a questionnaire (n = 80 FPs), video recordings of hypertension- or cholesterol-related general practitioner visits (n = 56), and the database of Netherlands Information Network of General Practice (n = 45 FPs; n = 157,137 patients). The questionnaire and video recordings were used to determine the average frequency and time spent on cardiovascular primary preventive activities per FP respectively. Taking into account the annual income and full time equivalents of general practitioners, health care assistants, and practice nurses as well as the practice costs, the total spending on cardiovascular primary preventive activities in Dutch FPs was calculated. The database of Netherlands Information Network of General Practice was used to determine the prescribing behaviour in Dutch FPs by conducting multilevel regression models and adjusting for patient and practice characteristics. RESULTS: Total expenditure on cardiovascular primary preventive activities in FPs in 2009 was €38.8 million (€2.35 per capita), of which 47% was spent on blood pressure measurements, 26% on cardiovascular risk profiling, and 11% on lifestyle counselling. Fifteen percent (€11 per capita) of all cardiovascular medication prescribed in FPs was a PPCM. FPs differed greatly on prescription of PPCM (odds ratio of 3.1). CONCLUSIONS: Total costs of cardiovascular primary preventive activities in FPs such as blood pressure measurements and lifestyle counselling are relatively low compared to the costs of PPCM. There is considerable heterogeneity in prescribing behaviour of PPCM between FPs. Further research is needed to determine whether such large differences in prescription rates are justified. Striving for an optimal use of cardiovascular primary preventive activities might lead to similar health outcomes, but may achieve important cost savings.

Project description:BackgroundThe Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) was a randomized, controlled clinical trial. It demonstrated that among high-risk individuals with impaired glucose tolerance, diabetes incidence was reduced by 58 % with lifestyle intervention and 31 % with metformin compared to placebo. During the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS), all DPP participants were unmasked to their treatment assignments, the original lifestyle intervention group was offered additional lifestyle support, the metformin group continued metformin, and all three groups were offered a group-implemented lifestyle intervention. Over the 10 years of combined DPP/DPPOS follow-up, diabetes incidence was reduced by 34 % in the lifestyle group and 18 % in the metformin group compared to placebo. The purpose of this article is to review and synthesize analyses published by the DPP/DPPOS Research Group that have described the cost-effectiveness of diabetes prevention.MethodsWe describe the resource utilization and costs of the DPP and DPPOS interventions, the costs of non-intervention-related medical care, the impact of the interventions on diabetes progression and quality-of-life, and the cost-effectiveness of the interventions from health system and societal perspectives. Cost-effectiveness analyses were performed with a 3-year time horizon using DPP data, a lifetime time horizon that simulated 3-year DPP data, and a 10-year time horizon using combined DPP/DPPOS data.ResultsAlthough more expensive than the placebo intervention, the greater costs of the lifestyle and metformin interventions were offset by reductions in the costs of nonintervention-related medical care. Every year after randomization, quality-of-life was better for participants in the lifestyle intervention compared to those in the metformin or placebo intervention. In both the simulated lifetime analysis and the 10-year within trial economic analysis, lifestyle and metformin were extremely cost-effective (that is, improved outcomes at a low incremental cost) or even cost-saving (that is, improved outcomes and reduced total costs) compared to the placebo intervention.ConclusionsThe implementation of diabetes prevention programs in high-risk individuals will result in important health benefits and represents a good value for money.Trial registrationNCT00004992 (DPP) and NCT00038727 (DPPOS).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Data on the cost-effectiveness of lifestyle-based diabetes prevention programs are mostly from high-income countries, which cannot be extrapolated to low- and middle-income countries. We performed a trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of a lifestyle intervention targeted at preventing diabetes in India. METHODS:The Kerala Diabetes Prevention Program was a cluster-randomized controlled trial of 1007 individuals conducted in 60 polling areas (electoral divisions) in Kerala state. Participants (30-60?years) were those with a high diabetes risk score and without diabetes on an oral glucose tolerance test. The intervention group received a 12-month peer-support lifestyle intervention involving 15 group sessions delivered in community settings by trained lay peer leaders. There were also linked community activities to sustain behavior change. The control group received a booklet on lifestyle change. Costs were estimated from the health system and societal perspectives, with 2018 as the reference year. Effectiveness was measured in terms of the number of diabetes cases prevented and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Three times India's gross domestic product per capita (US$6108) was used as the cost-effectiveness threshold. The analyses were conducted with a 2-year time horizon. Costs and effects were discounted at 3% per annum. One-way and multi-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS:Baseline characteristics were similar in the two study groups. Over 2 years, the intervention resulted in an incremental health system cost of US$2.0 (intervention group: US$303.6; control group: US$301.6), incremental societal cost of US$6.2 (intervention group: US$367.8; control group: US$361.5), absolute risk reduction of 2.1%, and incremental QALYs of 0.04 per person. From a health system perspective, the cost per diabetes case prevented was US$95.2, and the cost per QALY gained was US$50.0. From a societal perspective, the corresponding figures were US$295.1 and US$155.0. For the number of diabetes cases prevented, the probability for the intervention to be cost-effective was 84.0% and 83.1% from the health system and societal perspectives, respectively. The corresponding figures for QALY gained were 99.1% and 97.8%. The results were robust to discounting and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS:A community-based peer-support lifestyle intervention was cost-effective in individuals at high risk of developing diabetes in India over 2 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The trial was registered with Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12611000262909 ). Registered 10 March 2011.

Project description:Tanzania is facing a double burden of disease, with non-communicable diseases being an increasingly important contributor. Evidence-based preventive measures are important to limit the growing financial burden. This article aims to estimate the cost of providing medical primary prevention interventions for cardiovascular disease (CVD) among at-risk patients, reflecting actual resource use and if the World Health Organization (WHO)'s CVD medical preventive guidelines are implemented in Tanzania. In addition, we estimate and explore the cost to patients of receiving these services. Cost data were collected in four health facilities located in both urban and rural settings. Providers' costs were identified and measured using ingredients approach to costing and resource valuation followed the opportunity cost method. Unit costs were estimated using activity-based and step-down costing methodologies. The patient costs were obtained through a structured questionnaire. The unit cost of providing CVD medical primary prevention services ranged from US$30-41 to US$52-71 per patient per year at the health centre and hospital levels, respectively. Employing the WHO's absolute risk approach guidelines will substantially increase these costs. The annual patient cost of receiving these services as currently practised was estimated to be US$118 and US$127 for urban and rural patients, respectively. Providers' costs were estimated from two main viewpoints: 'what is', that is the current practice, and 'what if', reflecting a WHO guidelines scenario. The higher cost of implementing the WHO guidelines suggests the need for further evaluation of whether these added costs are reasonable relative to the added benefits. We also found considerably higher patient costs, implying that distributive and equity implications of access to care require more consideration. Facility location surfaced as the main explanatory variable for both direct and indirect patient costs in the regression analysis; further research on the influence of other provider characteristics on these costs is important.

Dataset Information

A cost-effectiveness analysis of risk-based intervention for prevention of cardiovascular diseases in IraPEN program: A modeling study.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A cost-effectiveness analysis of risk-based intervention for prevention of cardiovascular diseases in IraPEN program: A modeling study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets