Tom Marshall1, Andrew Rouse. 1. Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT. T.P.Marshall@bham.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a model to determine resource costs and health benefits of implementing guidelines for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in primary care. DESIGN: Modelling of data from six strategies for prevention of cardiovascular disease. Strategies incorporated two ways of identifying patients for assessment: traditional (assessment of all adults) and novel (preselection of patients for assessment using a prior estimate of their risk of cardiovascular disease). Three treatment strategies were modelled in conjunction with each identification strategy. SETTING: England. SUBJECTS: Patients aged 30 to 74 eligible for primary prevention strategies for cardiovascular disease who were selected from a hypothetical population of 2000. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Resource costs of assessing eligible adults, providing treatment and follow up to those eligible, and number of cardiovascular events this should prevent. RESULTS: Novel strategies prevented more cardiovascular disease, at lower cost, than traditional strategies. Some treatment strategies prevent more cardiovascular disease with fewer resources than others. The findings were robust across a range of different assumptions about workload. CONCLUSION: Preselecting patients for assessment makes better use of staff time than assessing all adults. Treating many patients with low cost drugs is more efficient than prescribing a few patients intensive antihypertensives and statins. Authors of guidelines should model workload implications and health benefits of following their recommendations.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a model to determine resource costs and health benefits of implementing guidelines for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in primary care. DESIGN: Modelling of data from six strategies for prevention of cardiovascular disease. Strategies incorporated two ways of identifying patients for assessment: traditional (assessment of all adults) and novel (preselection of patients for assessment using a prior estimate of their risk of cardiovascular disease). Three treatment strategies were modelled in conjunction with each identification strategy. SETTING: England. SUBJECTS:Patients aged 30 to 74 eligible for primary prevention strategies for cardiovascular disease who were selected from a hypothetical population of 2000. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Resource costs of assessing eligible adults, providing treatment and follow up to those eligible, and number of cardiovascular events this should prevent. RESULTS: Novel strategies prevented more cardiovascular disease, at lower cost, than traditional strategies. Some treatment strategies prevent more cardiovascular disease with fewer resources than others. The findings were robust across a range of different assumptions about workload. CONCLUSION: Preselecting patients for assessment makes better use of staff time than assessing all adults. Treating many patients with low cost drugs is more efficient than prescribing a few patients intensive antihypertensives and statins. Authors of guidelines should model workload implications and health benefits of following their recommendations.
Authors: F Gueyffier; F Boutitie; J P Boissel; S Pocock; J Coope; J Cutler; T Ekbom; R Fagard; L Friedman; M Perry; R Prineas; E Schron Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1997-05-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: T R Pedersen; J Kjekshus; K Berg; A G Olsson; L Wilhelmsen; H Wedel; K Pyörälä; T Miettinen; T Haghfelt; O Faergeman; G Thorgeirsson; B Jönsson; J S Schwartz Journal: Circulation Date: 1996-05-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: I Gemmell; R F Heller; P McElduff; K Payne; G Butler; R Edwards; M Roland; P Durrington Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Linnea A Polgreen; Jayoung Han; Barry L Carter; Gail P Ardery; Christopher S Coffey; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Paul A James Journal: Hypertension Date: 2015-11-02 Impact factor: 10.190