BACKGROUND: Controversy persists about the most efficient allocation of healthcare funds for cardiovascular disease prevention. Previous economic analyses have generally focused on primary or secondary prevention as discrete categories. OBJECTIVES: To address the information required by decision-makers to distribute budgets optimally across an entire population at risk in view of recommendations promulgated by the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The Continuum of Risk Evaluation (CORE) model is an individual patient simulation of the occurrence of cardiovascular disease allowing for analyses over a broad range of risk. All events are tallied, costs are applied, and survival is modified accordingly. Disaggregated presentation of the results allows decision-makers to evaluate the budgetary implications and cost effectiveness of different strategies according to the risk at which treatment is initiated. This process is illustrated for the United States using information from the 1988-1994 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and pravastatin trials. RESULTS: Secondary prevention with pravastatin costs dollar 2900 per life-year gained for men and dollar 1100 per life-year gained for women. Lowering the treatment threshold to incorporate primary prevention yields cost-effectiveness ratios that remain below dollar 25 000 per undiscounted life-year gained until a 10-year cardiovascular disease risk of 14.4%. Cost savings are possible for very high-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: The economic impact of an integrated approach to prevention of cardiovascular disease has not been thoroughly explored. CORE permits realistic analysis of policy decisions involving the entire continuum of risk rather than isolated consideration of specific disease stages, and thus provides a unique tool for assessing the full implications of treatment guidelines such as those of the NCEP ATP III.
BACKGROUND: Controversy persists about the most efficient allocation of healthcare funds for cardiovascular disease prevention. Previous economic analyses have generally focused on primary or secondary prevention as discrete categories. OBJECTIVES: To address the information required by decision-makers to distribute budgets optimally across an entire population at risk in view of recommendations promulgated by the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The Continuum of Risk Evaluation (CORE) model is an individual patient simulation of the occurrence of cardiovascular disease allowing for analyses over a broad range of risk. All events are tallied, costs are applied, and survival is modified accordingly. Disaggregated presentation of the results allows decision-makers to evaluate the budgetary implications and cost effectiveness of different strategies according to the risk at which treatment is initiated. This process is illustrated for the United States using information from the 1988-1994 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and pravastatin trials. RESULTS: Secondary prevention with pravastatin costs dollar 2900 per life-year gained for men and dollar 1100 per life-year gained for women. Lowering the treatment threshold to incorporate primary prevention yields cost-effectiveness ratios that remain below dollar 25 000 per undiscounted life-year gained until a 10-year cardiovascular disease risk of 14.4%. Cost savings are possible for very high-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: The economic impact of an integrated approach to prevention of cardiovascular disease has not been thoroughly explored. CORE permits realistic analysis of policy decisions involving the entire continuum of risk rather than isolated consideration of specific disease stages, and thus provides a unique tool for assessing the full implications of treatment guidelines such as those of the NCEP ATP III.
Authors: Pearl D Gumbs; Monique W M Verschuren; Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse; Ardine G de Wit; Anthonius de Boer; Olaf H Klungel Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2007 Impact factor: 4.981