PURPOSE: Our aim was to update estimates of the health and economic impact of clinical services recommended for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) for the comparative rankings of the National Commission on Prevention Priorities, and to explore differences in outcomes by sex and race/ethnicity. METHODS: We used a single, integrated, microsimulation model to generate comparable results for 3 services recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force: aspirin counseling for the primary prevention of CVD and colorectal cancer, screening and treatment for lipid disorders (usually high cholesterol), and screening and treatment for hypertension. Analyses compare lifetime outcomes from the societal perspective for a US-representative birth cohort of 100,000 persons with and without access to each clinical preventive service. Primary outcomes are health impact, measured by the net difference in lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness, measured in incremental cost per QALY or cost savings per person in 2012 dollars. Results are also presented for population subgroups defined by sex and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Health impact is highest for hypertension screening and treatment (15,600 QALYs), but is closely followed by cholesterol screening and treatment (14,300 QALYs). Aspirin counseling has a lower health impact (2,200 QALYs) but is found to be cost saving ($31 saved per person). Cost-effectiveness for cholesterol and hypertension screening and treatment is $33,800 per QALY and $48,500 per QALY, respectively. Findings favor hypertension over cholesterol screening and treatment for women, and opportunities to reduce disease burden across all services are greatest for the non-Hispanic black population. CONCLUSIONS: All 3 CVD preventive services continue to rank highly among other recommended preventive services for US adults, but individual priorities can be tailored in practice by taking a patient's demographic characteristics and clinical objectives into account.
PURPOSE: Our aim was to update estimates of the health and economic impact of clinical services recommended for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) for the comparative rankings of the National Commission on Prevention Priorities, and to explore differences in outcomes by sex and race/ethnicity. METHODS: We used a single, integrated, microsimulation model to generate comparable results for 3 services recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force: aspirin counseling for the primary prevention of CVD and colorectal cancer, screening and treatment for lipid disorders (usually high cholesterol), and screening and treatment for hypertension. Analyses compare lifetime outcomes from the societal perspective for a US-representative birth cohort of 100,000 persons with and without access to each clinical preventive service. Primary outcomes are health impact, measured by the net difference in lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness, measured in incremental cost per QALY or cost savings per person in 2012 dollars. Results are also presented for population subgroups defined by sex and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Health impact is highest for hypertension screening and treatment (15,600 QALYs), but is closely followed by cholesterol screening and treatment (14,300 QALYs). Aspirin counseling has a lower health impact (2,200 QALYs) but is found to be cost saving ($31 saved per person). Cost-effectiveness for cholesterol and hypertension screening and treatment is $33,800 per QALY and $48,500 per QALY, respectively. Findings favor hypertension over cholesterol screening and treatment for women, and opportunities to reduce disease burden across all services are greatest for the non-Hispanic black population. CONCLUSIONS: All 3 CVD preventive services continue to rank highly among other recommended preventive services for US adults, but individual priorities can be tailored in practice by taking a patient's demographic characteristics and clinical objectives into account.
Authors: J A Staessen; R Fagard; L Thijs; H Celis; G G Arabidze; W H Birkenhäger; C J Bulpitt; P W de Leeuw; C T Dollery; A E Fletcher; F Forette; G Leonetti; C Nachev; E T O'Brien; J Rosenfeld; J L Rodicio; J Tuomilehto; A Zanchetti Journal: Lancet Date: 1997-09-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: John R Hughes; Josue P Keely; Ray S Niaura; Deborah J Ossip-Klein; Robyn L Richmond; Gary E Swan Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Hallvard Holdaas; Bengt Fellström; Alan G Jardine; Ingar Holme; Gudrun Nyberg; Per Fauchald; Carola Grönhagen-Riska; Søren Madsen; Hans-Hellmut Neumayer; Edward Cole; Bart Maes; Patrice Ambühl; Anders G Olsson; Anders Hartmann; Dag O Solbu; Terje R Pedersen Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-06-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Sharon Saydah; Kai McKeever Bullard; Yiling Cheng; Mohammed K Ali; Edward W Gregg; Linda Geiss; Giuseppina Imperatore Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2014-04-15 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: J Shepherd; S M Cobbe; I Ford; C G Isles; A R Lorimer; P W MacFarlane; J H McKillop; C J Packard Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1995-11-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andrew J Leidner; Neil Murthy; Harrell W Chesson; Matthew Biggerstaff; Charles Stoecker; Aaron M Harris; Anna Acosta; Kathleen Dooling; Carolyn B Bridges Journal: Vaccine Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Nazila M Dabestani; Andrew J Leidner; Eric E Seiber; Hyoshin Kim; Samuel B Graitcer; Ivo M Foppa; Carolyn B Bridges Journal: Prev Med Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Karen L Margolis; Steven P Dehmer; JoAnn Sperl-Hillen; Patrick J O'Connor; Stephen E Asche; Anna R Bergdall; Beverly B Green; Rachel A Nyboer; Pamala A Pawloski; Nicole K Trower; Michael V Maciosek Journal: Hypertension Date: 2020-08-31 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Steven P Dehmer; Mary E Cogswell; Matthew D Ritchey; Yuling Hong; Michael V Maciosek; Amy B LaFrance; Kakoli Roy Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Jakob Tarp; Eva Jespersen; Niels Christian Møller; Heidi Klakk; Barbara Wessner; Niels Wedderkopp; Anna Bugge Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 3.295