Are Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessment and Management Programmes Cost Effective? A Systematic Review of the Evidence

The World Health Organization recommends that countries implement population-wide cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment and management programmes. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to evaluate whether this recommendation is supported by cost-effectiveness evidence. Published economic evaluations were identified via electronic medical and social science databases (including Medline, Web of Science, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database) from inception to March 2016. Study quality was evaluated using a modified version of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. Fourteen economic evaluations were included: five studies based on randomised controlled trials, seven studies based on observational studies and two studies using hypothetical modelling synthesizing secondary data. Trial based studies measured CVD risk factor changes over 1 to 3years, with modelled projections of longer term events. Programmes were either not, or only, cost-effective under non-verified assumptions such as sustained risk factor changes. Most observational and hypothetical studies suggested programmes were likely to be cost-effective; however, study deigns are subject to bias and subsequent empirical evidence has contradicted key assumptions. No studies assessed impacts on inequalities. In conclusion, recommendations for population-wide risk assessment and management programmes lack a robust, real world, evidence basis. Given implementation is resource intensive there is a need for robust economic evaluation, ideally conducted alongside trials, to assess cost effectiveness. Further, the efficiency and equity impact of different delivery models should be investigated, and also the combination of targeted screening with whole population interventions recognising that there multiple approaches to prevention.