Daphne M Stol1,2, Eelco A B Over3, Ilse F Badenbroek4,5, Monika Hollander4, Mark M J Nielen5, Roderik A Kraaijenhagen6, François G Schellevis5,7, Niek J de Wit4, G Ardine de Wit4,3. 1. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. d.m.stol@umcutrecht.nl. 2. Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Utrecht, The Netherlands. d.m.stol@umcutrecht.nl. 3. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands. 4. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 5. Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Utrecht, The Netherlands. 6. Netherlands Institute for Prevention and E-health Development (NIPED), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centers (location VUmc), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiometabolic diseases (CMD) are the major cause of death worldwide and are associated with a lower quality of life and high healthcare costs. To prevent a further rise in CMD and related healthcare costs, early detection and adequate management of individuals at risk could be an effective preventive strategy. The objective of this study was to determine long-term cost-effectiveness of stepwise CMD risk assessment followed by individualized treatment if indicated compared to care as usual. A computer-based simulation model was used to project long-term health benefits and cost-effectiveness, assuming the prevention program was implemented in Dutch primary care. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial in a primary care setting in which 1934 participants aged 45-70 years without recorded CMD or CMD risk factors participated. The intervention group was invited for stepwise CMD risk assessment through a risk score (step 1), additional risk assessment at the practice in case of increased risk (step 2) and individualized follow-up treatment if indicated (step 3). The control group was not invited for risk assessment, but completed a health questionnaire. Results of the effectiveness analysis on systolic blood pressure (- 2.26 mmHg; 95% CI - 4.01: - 0.51) and total cholesterol (- 0.15 mmol/l; 95% CI - 0.23: - 0.07) were used in this analysis. Outcome measures were the costs and benefits after 1-year follow-up and long-term (60 years) cost-effectiveness of stepwise CMD risk assessment compared to no assessment. A computer-based simulation model was used that included data on disability weights associated with age and disease outcomes related to CMD. Analyses were performed taking a healthcare perspective. RESULTS: After 1 year, the average costs in the intervention group were 260 Euro higher than in the control group and differences were mainly driven by healthcare costs. No meaningful change was found in EQ 5D-based quality of life between the intervention and control groups after 1-year follow-up (- 0.0154; 95% CI - 0.029: 0.004). After 60 years, cumulative costs of the intervention were 41.4 million Euro and 135 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were gained. Despite improvements in blood pressure and cholesterol, the intervention was not cost-effective (ICER of 306,000 Euro/QALY after 60 years). Scenario analyses did not allow for a change in conclusions with regard to cost-effectiveness of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of this primary care-based CMD prevention program is not cost-effective in the long term. Implementation of this program in primary care cannot be recommended. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register NTR4277 , registered on 26 November 2013.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Cardiometabolic diseases (CMD) are the major cause of death worldwide and are associated with a lower quality of life and high healthcare costs. To prevent a further rise in CMD and related healthcare costs, early detection and adequate management of individuals at risk could be an effective preventive strategy. The objective of this study was to determine long-term cost-effectiveness of stepwise CMD risk assessment followed by individualized treatment if indicated compared to care as usual. A computer-based simulation model was used to project long-term health benefits and cost-effectiveness, assuming the prevention program was implemented in Dutch primary care. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial in a primary care setting in which 1934 participants aged 45-70 years without recorded CMD or CMD risk factors participated. The intervention group was invited for stepwise CMD risk assessment through a risk score (step 1), additional risk assessment at the practice in case of increased risk (step 2) and individualized follow-up treatment if indicated (step 3). The control group was not invited for risk assessment, but completed a health questionnaire. Results of the effectiveness analysis on systolic blood pressure (- 2.26 mmHg; 95% CI - 4.01: - 0.51) and total cholesterol (- 0.15 mmol/l; 95% CI - 0.23: - 0.07) were used in this analysis. Outcome measures were the costs and benefits after 1-year follow-up and long-term (60 years) cost-effectiveness of stepwise CMD risk assessment compared to no assessment. A computer-based simulation model was used that included data on disability weights associated with age and disease outcomes related to CMD. Analyses were performed taking a healthcare perspective. RESULTS: After 1 year, the average costs in the intervention group were 260 Euro higher than in the control group and differences were mainly driven by healthcare costs. No meaningful change was found in EQ 5D-based quality of life between the intervention and control groups after 1-year follow-up (- 0.0154; 95% CI - 0.029: 0.004). After 60 years, cumulative costs of the intervention were 41.4 million Euro and 135 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were gained. Despite improvements in blood pressure and cholesterol, the intervention was not cost-effective (ICER of 306,000 Euro/QALY after 60 years). Scenario analyses did not allow for a change in conclusions with regard to cost-effectiveness of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of this primary care-based CMD prevention program is not cost-effective in the long term. Implementation of this program in primary care cannot be recommended. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register NTR4277 , registered on 26 November 2013.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cardiometabolic diseases; Cardiovascular disease; Cost-effectiveness analysis; Diabetes type 2; Economic evaluation; Modelling study; Prevention; Primary care
Authors: Rudolf T Hoogenveen; Hendriek C Boshuizen; Peter M Engelfriet; Pieter H M van Baal Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Paul F van Gils; Eelco A B Over; Heleen H Hamberg-van Reenen; G Ardine de Wit; Matthijs van den Berg; Albertine J Schuit; Peter M Engelfriet Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2011-12-21 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Lawrence A Leiter; David H Fitchett; Richard E Gilbert; Milan Gupta; G B John Mancini; Philip A McFarlane; Robert Ross; Hwee Teoh; Subodh Verma; Sonia Anand; Kathryn Camelon; Chi-Ming Chow; Jafna L Cox; Jean-Pierre Després; Jacques Genest; Stewart B Harris; David C W Lau; Richard Lewanczuk; Peter P Liu; Eva M Lonn; Ruth McPherson; Paul Poirier; Shafiq Qaadri; Rémi Rabasa-Lhoret; Simon W Rabkin; Arya M Sharma; Andrew W Steele; James A Stone; Jean-Claude Tardif; Sheldon Tobe; Ehud Ur Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2011 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Marjan Alssema; Rachel S Newson; Stephan J L Bakker; Coen D A Stehouwer; Martijn W Heymans; Giel Nijpels; Hans L Hillege; Albert Hofman; Jacqueline C M Witteman; Ron T Gansevoort; Jacqueline M Dekker Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Denise A Peels; Rudolf R Hoogenveen; Talitha L Feenstra; Rianne Hj Golsteijn; Catherine Bolman; Aart N Mudde; Gerrie Cw Wendel-Vos; Hein de Vries; Lilian Lechner Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-10-23 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Maria do Céu Marques; Rute Pires; Miguel Perdigão; Luis Sousa; César Fonseca; Lara Guedes Pinho; Manuel Lopes Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2021-12-03