How cost-effective are new preventive strategies for cardiovascular disease?
Costs of providing a particular medical service can be measured, but it is more difficult to assess whether the service provides good value for the money spent. Rigorous trials have demonstrated the health benefits connected with interventions for treatment and prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and in-depth analyses of the costs associated with many of those interventions have been performed. Careful use of terminology clearly differentiating among cost-minimization (relative costs of proved equivalent therapeutics), cost-effectiveness (lives saved or years of life added), and cost-benefit (total net effect in monetary terms) analyses is warranted. Although trials commonly assess clinical effectiveness as reductions in mortality or CVD-specific outcomes, improvement in quality of life may be equally important and is expressed in quality-adjusted life-years. Comparisons between therapies can be assessed as a cost-effectiveness ratio. Extensive cost-effectiveness studies have been conducted on many important cardiovascular therapies: (1) beta-blockers and diuretics for multiple CVD outcomes, mortality, and prevention of recurrent myocardial infarction (MI); (2) statins for both primary and secondary prevention of CVD; (3) enalapril for prevention and treatment of congestive heart failure; (4) tissue plasminogen activator treatment of acute MI; (5) coronary artery bypass graft for left main, single-, and 2-vessel coronary artery disease, or severe angina; (6) physician counseling for smoking; and (7) radiofrequency ablation therapy for Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome. Therapies considered economically attractive include (1) secondary prevention with statins in hyperlipidemia, (2) smoking cessation programs, (3) primary prevention in treatment of high blood pressure with diuretics and beta-blockers, (4) primary prevention with regular exercise programs, (5) secondary prevention with cardiac rehabilitation, and (6) postinfarction treatment with beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. A recent cost-minimization analysis has been performed showing aspirin to be a "best buy" therapy for secondary prevention of CVD. The Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET) and Telmisartan Randomized Assessment Study in ACE-I Intolerant Patients with Cardiovascular Disease (TRANSCEND) program provide potential opportunities for both cost-minimization and cost-effectiveness analyses.
Probstfield
Jeffrey L
JL
University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle 98109-1024, USA. jeffp@crab.org
D000806:Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use; D001562:Benzimidazoles / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use; D001565:Benzoates / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use; D002318:Cardiovascular Diseases / Q000191:economics* / Q000517:prevention & control*; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D004359:Drug Therapy, Combination; D006801:Humans; D008017:Life Expectancy; D017059:Models, Econometric; D017257:Ramipril / Q000627:therapeutic use; D016019:Survival Analysis; D000077333:Telmisartan; D014481:United States
D000806:Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; D001562:Benzimidazoles; D001565:Benzoates; D017257:Ramipril; D000077333:Telmisartan