» Articles » PMID: 26682549

Modeling the Costs and Long-term Health Benefits of Screening the General Population for Risks of Cardiovascular Disease: a Review of Methods Used in the Literature

Overview
Specialty Health Services
Date 2015 Dec 20
PMID 26682549
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Strategies for screening and intervening to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in primary care settings need to be assessed in terms of both their costs and long-term health effects. We undertook a literature review to investigate the methodologies used.

Methods: In a framework of developing a new health-economic model for evaluating different screening strategies for primary prevention of CVD in Europe (EPIC-CVD project), we identified seven key modeling issues and reviewed papers published between 2000 and 2013 to assess how they were addressed.

Results: We found 13 relevant health-economic modeling studies of screening to prevent CVD in primary care. The models varied in their degree of complexity, with between two and 33 health states. Programmes that screen the whole population by a fixed cut-off (e.g., predicted 10-year CVD risk >20 %) identify predominantly elderly people, who may not be those most likely to benefit from long-term treatment. Uncertainty and model validation were generally poorly addressed. Few studies considered the disutility of taking drugs in otherwise healthy individuals or the budget impact of the programme.

Conclusions: Model validation, incorporation of parameter uncertainty, and sensitivity analyses for assumptions made are all important components of model building and reporting, and deserve more attention. Complex models may not necessarily give more accurate predictions. Availability of a large enough source dataset to reliably estimate all relevant input parameters is crucial for achieving credible results. Decision criteria should consider budget impact and the medicalization of the population as well as cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Citing Articles

Universal Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessment in Pregnancy: Call to Action Expert Panel.

Hameed A, Tarsa M, Graves C, Grodzinsky A, Thiel de Bocanegra H, Wolfe D JACC Adv. 2024; 3(8):101055.

PMID: 39372368 PMC: 11450966. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacadv.2024.101055.


Cost-effectiveness of applying high-sensitivity troponin I to a score for cardiovascular risk prediction in asymptomatic population.

Julicher P, Makarova N, Ojeda F, Giusepi I, Peters A, Thorand B PLoS One. 2024; 19(7):e0307468.

PMID: 39028718 PMC: 11259308. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307468.


Optimizing cardiovascular disease risk screening in a low-resource setting: cost-effectiveness of program modifications in Sri Lanka modelled with nationally representative survey data.

Wijemunige N, Rannan-Eliya R, van Baal P, ODonnell O BMC Public Health. 2023; 23(1):1792.

PMID: 37715157 PMC: 10503056. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-16640-5.


A cost-effectiveness analysis of risk-based intervention for prevention of cardiovascular diseases in IraPEN program: A modeling study.

Jamshidi A, Daroudi R, Aas E, Khalili D Front Public Health. 2023; 11:1075277.

PMID: 36908421 PMC: 9999709. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1075277.


Regulatory, Legal, and Market Aspects of Smart Wearables for Cardiac Monitoring.

Bronneke J, Muller J, Mouratis K, Hagen J, Stern A Sensors (Basel). 2021; 21(14).

PMID: 34300680 PMC: 8309890. DOI: 10.3390/s21144937.


References
1.
J Blake G, Ridker P, M Kuntz K . Potential cost-effectiveness of C-reactive protein screening followed by targeted statin therapy for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease among patients without overt hyperlipidemia. Am J Med. 2003; 114(6):485-94. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9343(03)00074-3. View

2.
Mitchell A, Simpson R . Statin cost effectiveness in primary prevention: a systematic review of the recent cost-effectiveness literature in the United States. BMC Res Notes. 2012; 5:373. PMC: 3444438. DOI: 10.1186/1756-0500-5-373. View

3.
Kok L, Engelfriet P, Jacobs-van der Bruggen M, Hoogenveen R, Boshuizen H, Verschuren M . The cost-effectiveness of implementing a new guideline for cardiovascular risk management in primary care in the Netherlands. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2009; 16(3):371-6. DOI: 10.1097/HJR.0b013e328329497a. View

4.
McNeil J, Peeters A, Liew D, Lim S, Vos T . A model for predicting the future incidence of coronary heart disease within percentiles of coronary heart disease risk. J Cardiovasc Risk. 2001; 8(1):31-7. DOI: 10.1177/174182670100800105. View

5.
Karnon J, Stahl J, Brennan A, Caro J, Mar J, Moller J . Modeling using discrete event simulation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-4. Med Decis Making. 2012; 32(5):701-11. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12455462. View