BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of the optimal use of hospital-based acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treatments and their potential impact on coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality in China is not well known. METHODS AND RESULTS: The effectiveness and costs of optimal use of hospital-based AMI treatments were estimated by the CHD Policy Model-China, a Markov-style computer simulation model. Changes in simulated AMI, CHD mortality, quality-adjusted life years, and total healthcare costs were the outcomes. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was used to assess projected cost-effectiveness. Optimal use of 4 oral drugs (aspirin, β-blockers, statins, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors) in all eligible patients with AMI or unfractionated heparin in non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction was a highly cost-effective strategy (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios approximately US $3100 or less). Optimal use of reperfusion therapies in eligible patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction was moderately cost effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ≤$10,700). Optimal use of clopidogrel for all eligible patients with AMI or primary percutaneous coronary intervention among high-risk patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in tertiary hospitals alone was less cost effective. Use of all the selected hospital-based AMI treatment strategies together would be cost-effective and reduce the total CHD mortality rate in China by ≈9.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal use of most standard hospital-based AMI treatment strategies, especially combined strategies, would be cost effective in China. However, because so many AMI deaths occur outside of the hospital in China, the overall impact on preventing CHD deaths was projected to be modest.
BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of the optimal use of hospital-based acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treatments and their potential impact on coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality in China is not well known. METHODS AND RESULTS: The effectiveness and costs of optimal use of hospital-based AMI treatments were estimated by the CHD Policy Model-China, a Markov-style computer simulation model. Changes in simulated AMI, CHD mortality, quality-adjusted life years, and total healthcare costs were the outcomes. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was used to assess projected cost-effectiveness. Optimal use of 4 oral drugs (aspirin, β-blockers, statins, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors) in all eligible patients with AMI or unfractionated heparin in non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction was a highly cost-effective strategy (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios approximately US $3100 or less). Optimal use of reperfusion therapies in eligible patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction was moderately cost effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ≤$10,700). Optimal use of clopidogrel for all eligible patients with AMI or primary percutaneous coronary intervention among high-risk patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in tertiary hospitals alone was less cost effective. Use of all the selected hospital-based AMI treatment strategies together would be cost-effective and reduce the total CHD mortality rate in China by ≈9.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal use of most standard hospital-based AMI treatment strategies, especially combined strategies, would be cost effective in China. However, because so many AMI deaths occur outside of the hospital in China, the overall impact on preventing CHD deaths was projected to be modest.
Entities:
Keywords:
cost-benefit analysis; myocardial infarction; quality-adjusted life years; therapy
Authors: Robert S Sandler; James E Everhart; Mark Donowitz; Elizabeth Adams; Kelly Cronin; Clifford Goodman; Eric Gemmen; Shefali Shah; Aida Avdic; Robert Rubin Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: S S Rathore; B J Gersh; P B Berger; K P Weinfurt; W J Oetgen; K A Schulman; A J Solomon Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: B Frilling; R Schiele; A K Gitt; R Zahn; S Schneider; H G Glunz; U Gieseler; B Baumgärtel; F Asbeck; J Senges Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Michael A Blazing; James A de Lemos; Harvey D White; Keith A A Fox; Freek W A Verheugt; Diego Ardissino; Peter M DiBattiste; Joanne Palmisano; David W Bilheimer; Steven M Snapinn; Karen E Ramsey; Laura H Gardner; Vic Hasselblad; Marc A Pfeffer; Eldrin F Lewis; Eugene Braunwald; Robert M Califf Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-07-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Andrew E Moran; Mohammad H Forouzanfar; Gregory A Roth; George A Mensah; Majid Ezzati; Abraham Flaxman; Christopher J L Murray; Mohsen Naghavi Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jiamin Liu; Frederick A Masoudi; John A Spertus; Qing Wang; Karthik Murugiah; Erica S Spatz; Jing Li; Xi Li; Joseph S Ross; Harlan M Krumholz; Lixin Jiang Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2015-02-23 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Yan Gao; Frederick A Masoudi; Shuang Hu; Jing Li; Haibo Zhang; Xi Li; Nihar R Desai; Harlan M Krumholz; Lixin Jiang Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2014-10-10 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Dongfeng Gu; Jiang He; Pamela G Coxson; Petra W Rasmussen; Chen Huang; Anusorn Thanataveerat; Keane Y Tzong; Juyang Xiong; Miao Wang; Dong Zhao; Lee Goldman; Andrew E Moran Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2015-08-04 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Kalin Werner; Nicholas Risko; Taylor Burkholder; Kenneth Munge; Lee Wallis; Teri Reynolds Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 9.408