Literature DB >> 19221376

Comparing impact and cost-effectiveness of primary prevention strategies for lipid-lowering.

Mark J Pletcher1, Lawrence Lazar, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, Andrew Moran, Nicolas Rodondi, Pamela Coxson, James Lightwood, Lawrence Williams, Lee Goldman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Lipid-lowering therapy is costly but effective at reducing coronary heart disease (CHD) risk.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness and public health impact of Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) guidelines and compare with a range of risk- and age-based alternative strategies.
DESIGN: The CHD Policy Model, a Markov-type cost-effectiveness model. DATA SOURCES: National surveys (1999 to 2004), vital statistics (2000), the Framingham Heart Study (1948 to 2000), other published data, and a direct survey of statin costs (2008). TARGET POPULATION: U.S. population age 35 to 85 years. TIME HORIZON: 2010 to 2040. PERSPECTIVE: Health care system. INTERVENTION: Lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins). OUTCOME MEASURE: Incremental cost-effectiveness. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Full adherence to ATP III primary prevention guidelines would require starting (9.7 million) or intensifying (1.4 million) statin therapy for 11.1 million adults and would prevent 20,000 myocardial infarctions and 10,000 CHD deaths per year at an annual net cost of $3.6 billion ($42,000/QALY) if low-intensity statins cost $2.11 per pill. The ATP III guidelines would be preferred over alternative strategies if society is willing to pay $50,000/QALY and statins cost $1.54 to $2.21 per pill. At higher statin costs, ATP III is not cost-effective; at lower costs, more liberal statin-prescribing strategies would be preferred; and at costs less than $0.10 per pill, treating all persons with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels greater than 3.4 mmol/L (>130 mg/dL) would yield net cost savings. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Results are sensitive to the assumptions that LDL cholesterol becomes less important as a risk factor with increasing age and that little disutility results from taking a pill every day. LIMITATION: Randomized trial evidence for statin effectiveness is not available for all subgroups.
CONCLUSION: The ATP III guidelines are relatively cost-effective and would have a large public health impact if implemented fully in the United States. Alternate strategies may be preferred, however, depending on the cost of statins and how much society is willing to pay for better health outcomes. FUNDING: Flight Attendants' Medical Research Institute and the Swanson Family Fund. The Framingham Heart Study and Framingham Offspring Study are conducted and supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19221376     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-150-4-200902170-00005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  71 in total

1.  Using stress testing to guide primary prevention of coronary heart disease among intermediate-risk patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Benjamin Z Galper; Andrew Moran; Pamela G Coxson; Mark J Pletcher; Paul Heidenreich; Lawrence D Lazar; Nicolas Rodondi; Y Claire Wang; Lee Goldman
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2011-12-05       Impact factor: 29.690

2.  Should risky treatments be reserved for secondary prevention? Theoretical considerations regarding risk-benefit tradeoffs.

Authors:  M Brandon Westover; Nathaniel A Eiseman; Matt T Bianchi
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2012-05-27       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Do Pills Have No Ills? Capturing the Impact of Direct Treatment Disutility.

Authors:  Alexander Thompson; Bruce Guthrie; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  On the hypothetical universal use of statins in primary prevention: an observational analysis on low-risk patients and economic consequences of a potential wide prescription rate.

Authors:  Alejandro Macchia; Javier Mariani; Marilena Romero; Fabio Robusto; Vito Lepore; Antonio Dettorre; Gianni Tognoni
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-02-11       Impact factor: 2.953

5.  Statins and aspirin for chemoprevention in Barrett's esophagus: results of a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Sung Eun Choi; Katherine E Perzan; Angela C Tramontano; Chung Yin Kong; Chin Hur
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2013-12-31

Review 6.  Statins in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Authors:  Željko Reiner
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2013-06-04       Impact factor: 32.419

Review 7.  Lack of adequate appreciation of physical exercise's complexities can pre-empt appropriate design and interpretation in scientific discovery.

Authors:  F W Booth; M J Laye
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2009-09-01       Impact factor: 5.182

Review 8.  Update in general internal medicine.

Authors:  Toshiko Uchida; Stephen D Persell; David W Baker
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2009-10-28       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Are investments in disease prevention complements? The case of statins and health behaviors.

Authors:  Robert Kaestner; Michael Darden; Darius Lakdawalla
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2014-04-16       Impact factor: 3.883

10.  Projected effect of dietary salt reductions on future cardiovascular disease.

Authors:  Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; Glenn M Chertow; Pamela G Coxson; Andrew Moran; James M Lightwood; Mark J Pletcher; Lee Goldman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-01-20       Impact factor: 91.245

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.