{"title":"心血管疾病一级预防药物治疗的成本效益:一项模型研究。","authors":"Tom Marshall","doi":"10.1097/01.hjr.0000230098.63277.61","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Efficient prevention policies need to be informed by knowledge of the cost-effectiveness of preventive treatments. This paper calculates the cost-effectiveness of aspirin, antihypertensive treatments and statins for prevention of cardiovascular disease.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>The investigation is a modelling study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten-year cardiovascular risks and treatment eligibility were determined for each individual in a population of 5603 obtained from the Health Survey of England. Using published costs and evidence of effectiveness the cost-effectiveness of treating each eligible individual was determined over a 10-year time horizon. The marginal cost-effectiveness of additional antihypertensive drugs and increasing doses of statins were determined and a sensitivity analysis was carried out.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 5603 individuals 27.5% (95% confidence interval, 26.3-28.7%) were eligible for at least one treatment: the majority of these were eligible for all three. Cost per cardiovascular disease event prevented is strongly determined by pretreatment cardiovascular disease risk. In three-quarters of patients eligible for all three treatments, the lowest cost per event prevented was with aspirin and in the remainder with two-drug antihypertensive treatment. The marginal costs per event prevented were highest with the addition of a fourth antihypertensive drug and statins. These findings depend on the use of low-cost antihypertensives but are otherwise robust to a wide range of assumptions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Modelling the cost-effectiveness of treatments to prevent cardiovascular disease is feasible and provides valuable information. Cost-effectiveness analysis argues for more widespread use of aspirin and two-drug antihypertensive treatment and against the use of four-drug antihypertensive treatment or statins.</p>","PeriodicalId":50492,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"523-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/01.hjr.0000230098.63277.61","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The cost-effectiveness of drug treatments for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a modelling study.\",\"authors\":\"Tom Marshall\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/01.hjr.0000230098.63277.61\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Efficient prevention policies need to be informed by knowledge of the cost-effectiveness of preventive treatments. This paper calculates the cost-effectiveness of aspirin, antihypertensive treatments and statins for prevention of cardiovascular disease.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>The investigation is a modelling study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten-year cardiovascular risks and treatment eligibility were determined for each individual in a population of 5603 obtained from the Health Survey of England. Using published costs and evidence of effectiveness the cost-effectiveness of treating each eligible individual was determined over a 10-year time horizon. The marginal cost-effectiveness of additional antihypertensive drugs and increasing doses of statins were determined and a sensitivity analysis was carried out.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 5603 individuals 27.5% (95% confidence interval, 26.3-28.7%) were eligible for at least one treatment: the majority of these were eligible for all three. Cost per cardiovascular disease event prevented is strongly determined by pretreatment cardiovascular disease risk. In three-quarters of patients eligible for all three treatments, the lowest cost per event prevented was with aspirin and in the remainder with two-drug antihypertensive treatment. The marginal costs per event prevented were highest with the addition of a fourth antihypertensive drug and statins. These findings depend on the use of low-cost antihypertensives but are otherwise robust to a wide range of assumptions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Modelling the cost-effectiveness of treatments to prevent cardiovascular disease is feasible and provides valuable information. Cost-effectiveness analysis argues for more widespread use of aspirin and two-drug antihypertensive treatment and against the use of four-drug antihypertensive treatment or statins.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50492,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"523-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/01.hjr.0000230098.63277.61\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hjr.0000230098.63277.61\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hjr.0000230098.63277.61","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The cost-effectiveness of drug treatments for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a modelling study.
Background: Efficient prevention policies need to be informed by knowledge of the cost-effectiveness of preventive treatments. This paper calculates the cost-effectiveness of aspirin, antihypertensive treatments and statins for prevention of cardiovascular disease.
Design: The investigation is a modelling study.
Methods: Ten-year cardiovascular risks and treatment eligibility were determined for each individual in a population of 5603 obtained from the Health Survey of England. Using published costs and evidence of effectiveness the cost-effectiveness of treating each eligible individual was determined over a 10-year time horizon. The marginal cost-effectiveness of additional antihypertensive drugs and increasing doses of statins were determined and a sensitivity analysis was carried out.
Results: Of the 5603 individuals 27.5% (95% confidence interval, 26.3-28.7%) were eligible for at least one treatment: the majority of these were eligible for all three. Cost per cardiovascular disease event prevented is strongly determined by pretreatment cardiovascular disease risk. In three-quarters of patients eligible for all three treatments, the lowest cost per event prevented was with aspirin and in the remainder with two-drug antihypertensive treatment. The marginal costs per event prevented were highest with the addition of a fourth antihypertensive drug and statins. These findings depend on the use of low-cost antihypertensives but are otherwise robust to a wide range of assumptions.
Conclusions: Modelling the cost-effectiveness of treatments to prevent cardiovascular disease is feasible and provides valuable information. Cost-effectiveness analysis argues for more widespread use of aspirin and two-drug antihypertensive treatment and against the use of four-drug antihypertensive treatment or statins.