Extended cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions to improve uptake of diabetes services in South Africa.

The rising prevalence of diabetes in South Africa (SA), coupled with significant levels of unmet need for diagnosis and treatment, results in high rates of diabetes-associated complications. Income status is a determinant of utilization of diagnosis and treatment services, with transport costs and loss of wages being key barriers to care. A conditional cash transfer (CCT) programme, targeted to compensate for such costs, may improve service utilization. We applied extended cost-effectiveness analysis (ECEA) methods and used a Markov model to compare the costs, health benefits and financial risk protection (FRP) attributes of a CCT programme. A population was simulated, drawing from SA-specific data, which transitioned yearly through various health states, based on specific probabilities obtained from local data, over a 45-year time horizon. Costs and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) were applied to each health state. Three CCT programme strategies were simulated and compared to a 'no programme' scenario: (1) covering diagnosis services only; (2) covering treatment services only; (3) covering both diagnosis and treatment services. Cost-effectiveness was reported as incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) using a cost-effectiveness threshold of USD3015 per DALY for SA, while FRP outcomes were reported as catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) cases averted. Distributions of the outcomes were reported by income quintile and sex. Covering both diagnosis and treatment services for the bottom two quintiles resulted in the greatest INMB (USD22 per person) and the greatest CHE cases averted. There were greater FRP benefits for women compared to men. A CCT programme covering diabetes diagnosis and treatment services was found to be cost-effective, when provided to the poorest 40% of the SA population. ECEA provides a useful platform for including equity considerations to inform priority setting and implementation policies in SA.

Cost-Effectiveness of Masked Hypertension Screening and Treatment in US Adults With Suspected Masked Hypertension: A Simulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Recent US blood pressure (BP) guidelines recommend using ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring (HBPM) to screen adults for masked hypertension. However, limited evidence exists of the expected long-term effects of screening for and treating masked hypertension. METHODS: We estimated the lifetime health and economic outcomes of screening for and treating masked hypertension using the Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Policy Model, a validated microsimulation model. We simulated a cohort of 100,000 US adults aged ≥20 years with suspected masked hypertension (i.e., office BP 120-129/<80 mm Hg, not taking antihypertensive medications, without CVD history). We compared usual care only (i.e., no screening), usual care plus ABPM, and usual care plus HBPM. We projected total direct healthcare costs (2021 USD), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Future costs and QALYs were discounted 3% annually. Secondary outcomes included CVD events and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Relative to usual care, adding masked hypertension screening and treatment with ABPM and HBPM was projected to prevent 14.3 and 20.5 CVD events per 100,000 person-years, increase the proportion experiencing any treatment-related serious adverse events by 2.7 and 5.1 percentage points, and increase mean total costs by $1,076 and $1,046, respectively. Compared with usual care, adding ABPM was estimated to cost $85,164/QALY gained. HBPM resulted in lower QALYs than usual care due to increased treatment-related adverse events and pill-taking disutility. CONCLUSIONS: The results from our simulation study suggest screening with ABPM and treating masked hypertension is cost-effective in US adults with suspected masked hypertension.

Beyond 10-Year Risk: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Statins for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Cholesterol guidelines typically prioritize primary prevention statin therapy on the basis of 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease. The advent of generic pricing may justify expansion of statin eligibility. Moreover, 10-year risk may not be the optimal approach for statin prioritization. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of expanding preventive statin eligibility and evaluated novel approaches to prioritization from a Scottish health sector perspective. METHODS: A computer simulation model predicted long-term health and cost outcomes in Scottish adults ≥40 years of age. Epidemiologic analysis was completed using the Scottish Heart Health Extended Cohort, Scottish Morbidity Records, and National Records of Scotland. A simulation cohort was constructed with data from the Scottish Health Survey 2011 and contemporary population estimates. Treatment and cost inputs were derived from published literature and health service cost data. The main outcome measure was the lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, evaluated as cost (2020 GBP) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Three approaches to statin prioritization were analyzed: 10-year risk scoring using the ASSIGN score, age-stratified risk thresholds to increase treatment rates in younger individuals, and absolute risk reduction (ARR)-guided therapy to increase treatment rates in individuals with elevated cholesterol levels. For each approach, 2 policies were considered: treating the same number of individuals as those with an ASSIGN score ≥20% (age-stratified risk threshold 20, ARR 20) and treating the same number of individuals as those with an ASSIGN score ≥10% (age-stratified risk threshold 10, ARR 10). RESULTS: Compared with an ASSIGN score ≥20%, reducing the risk threshold for statin initiation to 10% expanded eligibility from 804 000 (32% of adults ≥40 years of age without CVD) to 1 445 500 individuals (58%). This policy would be cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, £12 300/QALY [95% CI, £7690/QALY-£26 500/QALY]). Incremental to an ASSIGN score ≥20%, ARR 20 produced ≈8800 QALYs and was cost-effective (£7050/QALY [95% CI, £4560/QALY-£10 700/QALY]). Incremental to an ASSIGN score ≥10%, ARR 10 produced ≈7950 QALYs and was cost-effective (£11 700/QALY [95% CI, £9250/QALY-£16 900/QALY]). Both age-stratified risk threshold strategies were dominated (ie, more expensive and less effective than alternative treatment strategies). CONCLUSIONS: Generic pricing has rendered preventive statin therapy cost-effective for many adults. ARR-guided therapy is more effective than 10-year risk scoring and is cost-effective.

Hypertension in the South African public healthcare system: a cost-of-illness and burden of disease study.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the health and economic burden of hypertension in the South African public healthcare system. SETTING: All inpatient, outpatient and rehabilitative care received in the national public healthcare system. PARTICIPANTS: Adults, aged ≥20 years, who receive care in the public healthcare system. OUTCOMES: Worksheet-based models synthesised data from multiple sources to estimate the burden of disease, direct healthcare costs, and societal costs associated with hypertension. Results were disaggregated by sex. RESULTS: Approximately 8.22 million (30.8%, 95% CI 29.5% to 32.1%) South African adults with no private health insurance have hypertension. Hypertension was estimated to cause 14 000 (95% CI 11 100 to 17 200) ischaemic heart disease events, 13 300 (95% CI 10 600 to 16 300) strokes and 6100 (95% CI 4970 to 7460) cases of chronic kidney disease annually. Rates of hypertension, hypertension-related stroke and hypertension-related chronic kidney disease were greater for women compared with men.The direct healthcare costs associated with hypertension were estimated to be ZAR 10.1 billion (95% CI 8.98 to 11.3 billion) or US$0.711 billion (95% CI 0.633 to 0.793 billion). Societal costs were estimated to be ZAR 29.4 billion (95% CI 26.0 to 33.2 billion) or US$2.08 billion (95% CI 1.83 to 2.34 billion). Direct healthcare costs were greater for women (ZAR 6.11 billion or US$0.431 billion) compared with men (ZAR 3.97 billion or US$0.280 billion). Conversely, societal costs were lower for women (ZAR 10.5 billion or US$0.743 billion) compared with men (ZAR 18.9 billion or US$1.33 billion). CONCLUSION: Hypertension exerts a heavy health and economic burden on South Africa. Establishing cost-effective best practice guidelines for hypertension treatment requires further research. Such research will be essential if South Africa is to make progress in its efforts to implement universal healthcare.

Trial-Based Economic Evaluations of Supported Employment for Adults with Severe Mental Illness: A Systematic Review.

To identify, appraise, and summarize outcomes reported in trial-based economic evaluations of Individual Placement and Support programs for adults with severe mental illness. Six databases were searched, including Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus, and EconLit. Inclusion criteria were trial-based, full economic evaluations comparing Individual Placement and Support programs to traditional vocational rehabilitation programs for adults 18 years and older with severe mental illness. Study quality was appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement. Of the 476 articles identified in the database search, seven were included in the review. Studies conducted across Europe (n = 4) and Japan (n = 1) suggested that Individual Placement and Support may be a cost-effective alternative to traditional vocational rehabilitation programs. Two studies conducted in the United States demonstrated that Individual Placement and Support led to better vocational outcomes, but at neutral or higher costs than traditional vocational rehabilitation, depending on the benefit measure used. Trial-based economic evaluations of supported employment for adults with severe mental illness are limited and heterogeneous. The interpretation of economic outcomes warrants consideration of factors that may impact cost-effectiveness, such as geographical location. Future studies should evaluate whether the benefits of IPS outweigh additional costs for patients and other stakeholders.

Cost-Effectiveness of Lipid-Lowering Treatments in Young Adults.

BACKGROUND: Raised low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in young adulthood (aged 18-39 years) is associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) later in life. Most young adults with elevated LDL-C do not currently receive lipid-lowering treatment. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of elevated LDL-C in ASCVD-free U.S. young adults and the cost-effectiveness of lipid-lowering strategies for raised LDL-C in young adulthood compared with standard care. METHODS: The prevalence of raised LDL-C was examined in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The CVD Policy Model projected lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), health care costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for lipid-lowering strategies. Standard care was statin treatment for adults aged ≥40 years based on LDL-C, ASCVD risk, or diabetes plus young adults with LDL-C ≥190 mg/dL. Lipid lowering incremental to standard care with moderate-intensity statins or intensive lifestyle interventions was simulated starting when young adult LDL-C was either ≥160 mg/dL or ≥130 mg/dL. RESULTS: Approximately 27% of ASCVD-free young adults have LDL-C of ≥130 mg/dL, and 9% have LDL-C of ≥160 mg/dL. The model projected that young adult lipid lowering with statins or lifestyle interventions would prevent lifetime ASCVD events and increase QALYs compared with standard care. ICERs were US$31,000/QALY for statins in young adult men with LDL-C of ≥130 mg/dL and US$106,000/QALY for statins in young adult women with LDL-C of ≥130 mg/dL. Intensive lifestyle intervention was more costly and less effective than statin therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Statin treatment for LDL-C of ≥130 mg/dL is highly cost-effective in young adult men and intermediately cost-effective in young adult women.

The clinical utility of apoB versus LDL-C/non-HDL-C.

BACKGROUND: The ESC/EAS Guidelines and the EAS/EFLM consensus reports state that apoB is a more accurate marker of cardiovascular risk than LDL-C or non-HDL-C and that apoB can be measured accurately and precisely than LDL-C or non-HDL-C. Nevertheless, EAS/EFLM called for a randomized clinical trial and a cost-effective analysis before widespread implementation of apoB. OBJECTIVE: To analyse these issues from the perspective of clinical utility as clinical utility would be considered by an informed patient and physician. METHODS AND RESULTS: We highlight the biological inaccuracies as well as the laboratory inaccuracies of LDL-C/non-HDL-C versus apoB. We demonstrate why the biological variance in the cholesterol loading per apoB particle makes it impossible to design a randomized clinical trial to compare apoB to LDL-C/non-HDL-C. We further demonstrate that even in the context of the United States, adding apoB to a lipid panel would have only a trivial effect on costs. CONCLUSION: We submit that no informed patient or physician would choose a less accurate test over a more accurate test if the more accurate test added only trivially to the total cost of care. For these reasons, the clinical utility of apoB far exceeds the clinical utility of LDL-C/non-HDL-C.

Cost-effectiveness of Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Level-Guided Statin Treatment in Patients With Borderline Cardiovascular Risk.

Importance: American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines prioritize primary prevention statin therapy based on 10-year absolute risk (AR10) of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, given the same AR10, patients with higher levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) experience greater absolute risk reduction from statin therapy. Objectives: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of expanding preventive statin treatment eligibility from standard care to patients at borderline risk (AR10, 5.0%-7.4%) for ASCVD and with high levels of LDL-C and to estimate cost-effectiveness of statin treatment across ranges of age, sex, AR10, and LDL-C levels. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study evaluated 100 simulated cohorts, each including 1 million ASCVD-free survey respondents (50% men and 50% women) aged 40 years at baseline. Cohorts were created by probabilistic sampling of the 1999-2014 US National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from the perspective of the US health care sector. The CVD Policy Model microsimulation version projected lifetime health and cost outcomes. Probability of first-ever coronary heart disease or stroke event was estimated by analysis of 6 pooled US cohort studies and recalibrated to match contemporary event rates. Other model variables were derived from national surveys, meta-analyses, and published literature. Data were analyzed from May 15, 2018, through June 10, 2019. Exposures: Four statin treatment strategies were compared: (1) treat all patients with AR10 of at least 7.5%, diabetes, or LDL-C of at least 190 mg/dL (standard care); (2) add treatment for borderline risk and LDL-C levels of 160 to 189 mg/dL; (3) add treatment for borderline risk and LDL-C levels of 130 to 159 mg/dL; and (4) add treatment for remainder of patients with AR10 of at least 5.0%. Statin treatment was also compared with no statin treatment in age, sex, AR10, and LDL-C strata. Main Outcomes and Measures: Lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs (2019 US dollars) were projected and discounted 3.0% annually. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results: In these 100 simulated cohorts, each with 1 million patients aged 40 years at baseline (50% women and 50% men), adding preventive statins to individuals with borderline AR10 and LDL-C levels of 160 to 189 mg/dL would be cost-saving; further treating borderline AR10 and LDL-C levels of 130 to 159 mg/dL would also be cost-saving; and treating all individuals with AR10 of at least 5.0% would be highly cost-effective ($33 558/QALY) and would prevent the most ASCVD events. Within age, AR10, and sex categories, individuals with higher baseline LDL-C levels gained more QALYs from statin therapy. Cost-effectiveness increased with LDL-C level and AR10. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, lifetime statin treatment of patients in a hypothetical cohort with borderline ASCVD risk and LDL-C levels of 160 to 189 mg/dL was found to be cost-saving. Results suggest that treating all patients at borderline risk regardless of LDL-C level would likely be highly cost-effective.

Comparative Cost-Effectiveness of Conservative or Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment Guidelines in Adults Aged 35-74 Years: The Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model.

The population health effect and cost-effectiveness of implementing intensive blood pressure goals in high-cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk adults have not been described. Using the CVD Policy Model, CVD events, treatment costs, quality-adjusted life years, and drug and monitoring costs were simulated over 2016 to 2026 for hypertensive patients aged 35 to 74 years. We projected the effectiveness and costs of hypertension treatment according to the 2003 Joint National Committee (JNC)-7 or 2014 JNC8 guidelines, and then for adults aged ≥50 years, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of adding an intensive goal of systolic blood pressure <120 mm Hg for patients with CVD, chronic kidney disease, or 10-year CVD risk ≥15%. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios <$50 000 per quality-adjusted life years gained were considered cost-effective. JNC7 strategies treat more patients and are more costly to implement compared with JNC8 strategies. Adding intensive systolic blood pressure goals for high-risk patients prevents an estimated 43 000 and 35 000 annual CVD events incremental to JNC8 and JNC7, respectively. Intensive strategies save costs in men and are cost-effective in women compared with JNC8 alone. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life years gained, JNC8+intensive had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness in women (82%) and JNC7+intensive the highest probability of cost-effectiveness in men (100%). Assuming higher drug and monitoring costs, adding intensive goals for high-risk patients remained consistently cost-effective in men, but not always in women. Among patients aged 35 to 74 years, adding intensive blood pressure goals for high-risk groups to current national hypertension treatment guidelines prevents additional CVD deaths while saving costs provided that medication costs are controlled.