Costs and cost effectiveness of cardiovascular screening and intervention: the British family heart study.

OBJECTIVE--To measure costs and cost effectiveness of the British family heart study cardiovascular screening and intervention programme. DESIGN--Cost effectiveness analysis of randomised controlled trial. Clinical and resource use data taken from trial and unit cost data from external estimates. SETTING--13 general practices across Britain. SUBJECTS--4185 men aged 40-59 and their 2827 partners. INTERVENTION--Nurse led programme using a family centered approach, with follow up according to degree of risk. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Cost of the programme it self; overall short term cost to NHS; cost per 1% reduction in coronary risk at one year. RESULTS--Estimated cost of putting the programme into practice for one year was 63 pounds per person (95% confidence interval 60 pounds to 65 pounds). The overall short term cost to the health service was 77 pounds per man (29 pounds to 124 pounds) but only 13 pounds per woman (-48 pounds to 74 pounds), owing to differences in utilisation of other health service resources. The cost per 1% reduction in risk was 5.08 pounds per man (5.92 pounds including broader health service costs) and 5.78 pounds per woman (1.28 pounds taking into account wider health service savings). CONCLUSIONS--The direct cost of the programme to a four partner practice of 7500 patients would be approximately 58,000 pounds. Annually, 8300 pounds would currently be paid to a practice of this size working to the maximum target on the health promotion bands, plus any additional reimbursement of practice staff salaries for which the practice qualified. The broader short term costs to the NHS may augment these costs for men but offset them considerably for women.     

Cost effectiveness of incremental programmes for lowering serum cholesterol concentration: is individual intervention worth while?

OBJECTIVE--To evaluate the relative cost effectiveness of various cholesterol lowering programmes. DESIGN--Retrospective analysis. SETTING--Norwegian cholesterol lowering programme in Norwegian male population aged 40-49 (n = 200,000), whose interventions comprise a population based promotion of healthier eating habits, dietary treatment (subjects with serum cholesterol concentration 6.0-7.9 mmol/l), and dietary and drug treatment combined (serum cholesterol concentration greater than or equal to 8.0 mmol/l). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--Marginal cost effectiveness ratios--that is, the ratio of net treatment costs (cost of treatment minus savings in treatment costs for coronary heart disease) to life years gained and to quality of life years (QALYs) saved. RESULTS--The cost per life year gained over 20 years of a population based strategy was projected to be 12 pounds. For an individual strategy based on dietary treatment the cost was about 12,400 pounds per life year gained and 111,600 pounds if drugs were added for 50% of the subjects with serum cholesterol concentrations greater than or equal to 8.0 mmol/l. CONCLUSIONS--The results underline the importance of marginal cost effectiveness analyses for incremental programmes of health care. The calculations of QALYs, though speculative, indicate that individual intervention should be implemented cautiously and within more selected groups than currently recommended. Drugs should be reserved for subjects with genetic hypercholesterolaemia or who are otherwise at very high risk of arteriosclerotic disease.     

Strategies for reducing coronary risk factors in primary care: which is most cost effective?

OBJECTIVE--To examine the relative cost effectiveness of a range of screening and intervention strategies for preventing coronary heart disease in primary care. SUBJECTS--7840 patients aged 35-64 years who were participants in a trial of modifying coronary heart disease risk factors in primary care. DESIGN--Effectiveness of interventions assumed and the potential years of life gained estimated from a risk equation calculated from Framingham study data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--The cost per year of life gained. RESULTS--The most cost effective strategy was minimal screening of blood pressure and personal history of vascular disease, which cost 310 pounds-930 pounds per year of life gained for men and 1100 pounds-3460 pounds for women excluding treatment of raised blood pressure. The extra cost per life year gained by adding smoking history to the screening was 400 pounds-6300 pounds in men. All strategies were more cost effective in men than in women and more cost effective in older age groups. Lipid lowering drugs accounted for at least 70% of the estimated costs of all strategies. Cost effectiveness was greatest when drug treatment was limited to those with cholesterol concentrations above 9.5 mmol/l. CONCLUSIONS--Universal screening and intervention strategies are an inefficient approach to reducing the coronary heart disease burden. A basic strategy for screening and intervention, targeted at older men with raised blood pressure and limiting the use of cholesterol lowering drugs to those with very high cholesterol concentrations would be most cost effective.     

Costs and cost effectiveness of health checks conducted by nurses in primary care: the Oxcheck study.

OBJECTIVE--To measure the costs and cost effectiveness of the Oxcheck cardiovascular risk factor screening and intervention programme. DESIGN--Cost effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial using clinical and economic data taken from the trial. SETTING--Five general practices in Luton and Dunstable, England. SUBJECTS--2205 patients who attended a health check in 1989-90 and were scheduled for re-examination in 1992-3 (intervention group); 1916 patients who attended their initial health check in 1992-3 (control group). Participants were men and women aged 35-64 years. INTERVENTION--Health check conducted by nurse, with health education and follow up according to degree of risk. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Cost of health check programme; cost per 1% reduction in coronary risk. RESULTS--Health check and follow up cost 29.27 pounds per patient. Estimated programme cost per 1% reduction in coronary risk per participant was between 1.46 pounds and 2.25 pounds; it was nearly twice as much for men as women. CONCLUSIONS--The cost to the practice of implementing Oxcheck-style health checks in an average sized practice of 7500 patients would be 47,000 pounds, a proportion of which could be paid for through staff pay reimbursements and Band Three health promotion target payments. This study highlights the considerable difficulties faced when calculating the costs and benefits of a health promotion programme. Economic evaluations should be integrated into the protocols of randomised controlled trials to enable judgments to be made on the relative cost effectiveness of different prevention strategies.     

Cost effectiveness of lowering cholesterol concentration with statins in patients with and without pre-existing coronary heart disease: life table method applied to health authority population.

OBJECTIVES--To estimate the cost effectiveness of statins in lowering serum cholesterol concentration in people at varying risk of fatal cardiovascular disease and to explore the implications of changing the criteria for intervention on cost and cost effectiveness for a purchasing authority. DESIGN--A life table method was used to model the effect of treatment with a statin on survival over 10 years in men and women aged 45-64. The costs of intervention were estimated from the direct costs of treatment, offset by savings associated with a reduction in coronary angiographies, non-fatal myocardial infarctions, and revascularisation procedures. The robustness of the model to various assumptions was tested in a sensitivity analysis. SETTING--Population of a typical district health authority. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--Cost per life year saved. RESULTS--The average cost effectiveness of treating men aged 45-64 with no history of coronary heart disease and a cholesterol concentration > 6.5 mmol/l for 10 years with a statin was 136,000 pounds per life year saved. The average cost effectiveness for patients with pre-existing coronary heart disease and a cholesterol concentration > 5.4 mmol/l was 32,000 pounds. These averages hide enormous differences in cost effectiveness between groups at different risk, ranging from 6000 pounds per life year in men aged 55-64 who have had a myocardial infarction and whose cholesterol concentration is above 7.2 mmol/l to 361,000 pounds per life year saved in women aged 45-54 with angina and a cholesterol concentration of 5.5-6.0 mmol/l. CONCLUSIONS--Lowering serum cholesterol concentration in patients with and without preexisting coronary heart disease is effective and safe, but treatment for all those in whom treatment is likely to be effective is not sustainable within current NHS resources. Data on cost effectiveness data should be taken into account when assessing who should be eligible for treatment.     

The West of Scotland coronary prevention study: economic benefit analysis of primary prevention with pravastatin.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the economic efficiency of using pravastatin to prevent the transition from health to cardiovascular disease in men with hypercholesterolaemia. DESIGN: Economic benefit analysis based on data from the West of Scotland coronary prevention study. Treatment specific hazards of developing cardiovascular disease according to various definitions were estimated. Scottish record linkage data provided disease specific survival. Cost estimates were based on extracontractual tariffs and event specific average lengths of stay calculated from the West of Scotland coronary prevention study. SUBJECTS: Men with hypercholesterolaemia similar to the subjects in the West of Scotland coronary prevention study. MAIN OUTCOME: Cost consequences, the number of transitions from health to cardiovascular disease prevented, the number needed to start treatment, and cost per life year gained. RESULTS: If 10,000 of these men started taking pravastatin, 318 of them would not make the transition from health to cardiovascular disease (number needed to treat, 31.4), at a net discounted cost of 20m Pounds over 5 years. These benefits imply an undiscounted gain of 2,460 years of life, and thus 8121 Pounds per life year gained, or 20,375 Pounds per life year gained if benefits are discounted. Restriction to the 40% of men at highest risk reduces the number needed to treat to 22.5 (5601 Pounds per life year gained (undiscounted) and 13,995 Pounds per life year gained (discounted)). CONCLUSIONS: In subjects without evidence of prior myocardial infarction but who have hypercholesterolaemia, the use of pravastatin yields substantial health benefits at a cost that is not prohibitive overall and can be quite efficient in selected high risk subgroups.     

A cost effective,community based heart health promotion project in England: prospective comparative study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a community based coronary heart disease health promotion project, undertaken over four years, was associated with changes in the prevalence in adults of lifestyle risk factors known to affect the development of coronary heart disease, and to estimate whether such an approach was cost effective. DESIGN: Prospective, comparative study of the effects of a health promotion intervention on coronary heart disease lifestyle risk factors, assessed by postal questionnaire sent to a randomly chosen sample, both at baseline and after four years. SUBJECTS: Intervention and control populations of adults aged 18-64 in Rotherham, both from areas with a high incidence of coronary heart disease and similar socioeconomic composition. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in prevalence of lifestyle risk factors between the control and intervention communities from 1991 to 1995. The effect of the intervention on certain lifestyle behaviours was evaluated using multiple logistic regression to model the proportion with a particular behaviour in the study communities as a function of age (18-40 or 41-64 years), sex, the year of observation (1991 or 1995), and area (intervention of control). RESULTS: 6.9% fewer people smoked and 8.7% more drank low fat milk in the intervention area, but no other statistically significant changes between the areas were detected. The estimated cost per life year gained was pounds 31. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to have a cost effective impact on coronary heart disease lifestyle risk factors in a population of adults over four years using only modest resources.     

Endpiece: A newspaper

ObjectiveTo assess the cost effectiveness of ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms.DesignPrimary analysis: four year cost effectiveness analysis based directly on results from a randomised controlled trial in which patients were individually allocated to invitation to ultrasound screening (intervention) or to a control group not offered screening. Secondary analysis: projection of the data, based on conservative assumptions, to indicate likely cost effectiveness at 10 years.SettingFour centres in the United Kingdom. Screening delivered in primary care settings with follow up and surgery offered in the main hospitalsParticipantsPopulation based sample of 67 800 men aged 65-74 years.ResultsOver four years there were 47 fewer deaths related to abdominal aortic aneurysms in the screening group than in the control group, but the additional costs incurred were £2.2m. After adjustment for censoring and discounted at 6% the mean additional cost of the screening programme was £63.39 ($97.77, €100.48) (95% confidence interval £53.31 to £73.48) per patient. The hazard ratio for abdominal aortic aneurysm was 0.58 (0.42 to 0.78). Over four years the mean incremental cost effectiveness ratio for screening was £28 400 (£15 000 to £146 000) per life year gained, equivalent to about £36 000 per quality adjusted life year. After 10 years this figure is estimated to fall to around £8000 per life year gained.ConclusionsEven at four years the cost effectiveness of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms is at the margin of acceptability according to current NHS thresholds. Over a longer period the cost effectiveness will improve substantially, the predicted ratio at 10 years falling to around a quarter of the four year figure.

What is already known on this topic

Small trials have suggested that an ultrasound screening programme to detect abdominal aortic aneurysms in older men may be effectiveThere is uncertainty about the cost effectiveness of routine screening, with widely varying estimates

What this study adds

A cost effectiveness analysis of data from a large randomised trial with follow up over four years showed 47 fewer deaths and additional costs of £2.2m in the group invited to screeningThe adjusted net cost per patient was £63.39 and per life year gained was £28 400The projected cost per life year gained after 10 years was £8000, which is substantially lower than the perceived NHS threshold value     

Coronary heart disease prevention: insights from modelling incremental cost effectiveness

Objective To determine which treatments for preventing coronary heart disease should be offered to which patients by assessing their incremental cost effectiveness.Design Modelling studyData sources Cost estimates (for NHS) and estimates of effectiveness obtained for aspirin, antihypertensive drugs, statins and clopidogrel.Data synthesis Treatment effects were assumed to be independent, and cost per coronary event prevented was calculated for treatments individually and in combination across patients at a range of coronary risks.Results The most cost effective preventive treatments are aspirin, initial antihypertensive treatment (bendrofluazide and atenolol), and intensive antihypertensive treatment (bendrofluazide, atenolol and enalapril), whereas simvastatin and clopidogrel are the least cost effective (cost per coronary event prevented in a patient at 10% coronary risk over five years is £3500 for aspirin, £12 500 for initial antihypertensives, £18 300 for intensive antihypertensives, £60 000 for clopidogrel, and £61 400 for simvastatin). Aspirin in a patient at 5% five year coronary risk costs less than a fifth as much per event prevented (£7900) as simvastatin in a patient at 30% five year risk (£40 800).Discussion A cost effective prevention strategy would offer aspirin and initial antihypertensive treatment to all patients at greater than 7.5% five year coronary risk before offering statins or clopidogrel to patients at greater than 15% five year coronary risk. Incremental cost effectiveness analysis of treatments produces robust, practical cost effectiveness rankings that can be used to inform treatment guidelines.     

Prescribing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors as strategy for prevention of suicide.

OBJECTIVE--To evaluate a policy to reduce the incidence of suicide by means of changing the prescribing of antidepressants from the older tricyclic antidepressants to the routine first line use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or newer tricyclic and related antidepressants. DESIGN--Cost effectiveness analysis with sensitivity analyses using observational data on costs, volume of prescribing, deaths, and toxicity. SETTING--United Kingdom primary care. INTERVENTIONS--Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or newer tricyclic and related antidepressants compared with the use of older tricyclics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Cost per life saved and cost per life year saved. RESULTS--The potential number of lives which may be saved from a switch to the routine first line use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors is between 300 and 450 each year. The cost per life year gained ranges from 19,000 pounds to 173,000 pounds, depending on the assumptions used. The cost per life year gained through the use of the newer tricyclic and related antidepressants is considerably lower. CONCLUSIONS--The cost per life year gained through avoiding suicides by the routine first line use of serotonin reuptake inhibitors is likely to be high. The new tricyclics and related drugs are of similar toxicity to the serotonin reuptake inhibitors but are considerably cheaper and so are most cost effective for this purpose. Further research is required on such prescribing. Because of the great uncertainties the shift to considerably more expensive options must be further investigated.     

Cost effectiveness analysis of different approaches of screening for familial hypercholesterolaemia

ObjectivesTo assess the cost effectiveness of strategies to screen for and treat familial hypercholesterolaemia.DesignCost effectiveness analysis. A care pathway for each patient was delineated and the associated probabilities, benefits, and costs were calculated.ParticipantsSimulated population aged 16-54 years in England and Wales.InterventionsIdentification and treatment of patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia by universal screening, opportunistic screening in primary care, screening of people admitted to hospital with premature myocardial infarction, or tracing family members of affected patients.ResultsTracing of family members was the most cost effective strategy (£3097 (€5066, $4479) per life year gained) as 2.6 individuals need to be screened to identify one case at a cost of £133 per case detected. If the genetic mutation was known within the family then the cost per life year gained (£4914) was only slightly increased by genetic confirmation of the diagnosis. Universal population screening was least cost effective (£13 029 per life year gained) as 1365 individuals need to be screened at a cost of £9754 per case detected. For each strategy it was more cost effective to screen younger people and women. Targeted strategies were more expensive per person screened, but the cost per case detected was lower. Population screening of 16 year olds only was as cost effective as family tracing (£2777 with a clinical confirmation).ConclusionsScreening family members of people with familial hypercholesterolaemia is the most cost effective option for detecting cases across the whole population.

What is already known on this topic

In the United Kingdom there are an estimated 110 000 men and women with familial hypercholesterolaemia, only a small percentage of whom have been identified to dateWithout identification and treatment, over half of these people will have a fatal or non-fatal coronary heart disease event by the age of 50 (men) or 60 (women)Effective treatment of high cholesterol concentrations reduces total and coronary heart disease mortalityNo recommended screening strategy currently exists in the United Kingdom for familial hypercholesterolaemia

What this study adds

Computer modelling has shown that the earlier familial hypercholesterolaemia is diagnosed the more cost effective the screening strategy becomesIdentifying relatives of people with familial hypercholesterolaemia is the most cost effective screening option for all age groupsAs technology improves and the cost of statins falls all strategies will become more cost effective     

Effect of non-attenders on the potential of a primary care programme to reduce cardiovascular risk in the population. Family Heart Study Group.

OBJECTIVES--To determine the feasibility of enrolling non-attenders of a population based cardiovascular risk reduction programme (the British family heart study) into a further, similar programme and to assess the effect of non-attendance on the effectiveness of the programme. DESIGN--Follow up of non-attenders by practice nurses, including home visits if necessary, to administer questionnaires and obtain physiological measurements. SETTING--Eight general practices across England, Scotland, and Wales. SUBJECTS--Non-attenders in a cardiovascular risk factor screening and intervention programme compared with attenders. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Number of non-attenders enrolled; sociodemographic characteristics; personal and family history of coronary heart disease; cardiovascular risk factors; and total coronary risk score. RESULTS--Data were collected from 106 (17%) of the 608 non-attending families (99 men and 42 women). Of the 543 non-attending families from five practices that attempted complete follow up, 256 had moved away or died. Only 76 were eventually enrolled into the study. The prevalence of coronary heart disease and a family history of coronary heart disease were similar among non-attenders and attenders as were the individual coronary risk factors studied except smoking. Women non-attenders were more likely to be current cigarette smokers than attenders (15/42 v 202/948, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS--The intensive follow up of non-attenders resulted in real intervention opportunities in only a small number. Since the effect of any intervention in a population is reduced by non-attendance audit of preventive medical programmes aimed at the population should allow for the effect of non-attenders on the overall results.     

Economics of coronary artery bypass grafting.

To decide whether the number of operations for coronary artery bypass grafting should be increased, maintained at the present levels, or decreased we need to know how cost effective they are relative to other claimants on the resources of the National Health Service. For this purpose effectiveness is taken to be the effect on life expectancy adjusted for the quality of life. In an assessment of the cost per quality adjusted life year gained coronary artery bypass grafting rates well for cases of severe angina and extensive coronary artery disease. The cost, however, rises sharply for less severe cases. Bypass grafting seems to compare favourably with valve replacement for aortic stenosis and implantation of pacemakers for heart block; it is distinctly better than heart transplantation and the treatment of end stage renal failure but is probably less cost effective than hip replacement. If the number of operations for coronary artery bypass grafting were to increase it would be a fairly strong claimant only if restricted to the most severe cases. The data on which these judgments are based are crude and in need of refinement. The methodology is powerful, far reaching, and open to comment.     

Debate: at what level of coronary heart disease risk should a statin be prescribed?

3-Hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) are effective treatments for the primary and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease, but an outstanding issue is determining who should have such treatment. The benefit from treatment with statins appears to be proportional to the underlying risk of coronary heart disease and independent of the factors increasing risk. Most benefit will therefore be achieved by treating people at increased risk of coronary heart disease. Statins reduce coronary morbidity even when the risk of coronary heart disease is relatively low (6% over 10 years), but reduction in all-cause mortality, the true measure of safety has been shown only when the risk of a major coronary heart disease event is 15% over 10 years or greater. At this level of risk patients appear willing to take treatment to gain the benefit expected from statin treatment, and the cost effectiveness of statin treatment is within the range accepted for other treatments. The major impediments to the systematic introduction of statin treatment at this level of risk are the very high overall cost and the large workload in countries like Britain, where the population risk of coronary heart disease is high. For this reason, recent British guidelines correctly advise statin treatment for secondary prevention and primary prevention when the 10 year coronary heart disease risk is 30% or greater as the first priority, moving to a lower coronary heart disease threshold for primary prevention only when resources permit.     

Modelling the cost effectiveness of interferon beta and glatiramer acetate in the management of multiple sclerosis

ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost effectiveness of four disease modifying treatments (interferon betas and glatiramer acetate) for relapsing remitting and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis in the United Kingdom.DesignModelling cost effectiveness.SettingUK NHS.ParticipantsPatients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis.ResultsThe base case cost per quality adjusted life year gained by using any of the four treatments ranged from £42 000 ($66 469; €61 630) to £98 000 based on efficacy information in the public domain. Uncertainty analysis suggests that the probability of any of these treatments having a cost effectiveness better than £20 000 at 20 years is below 20%. The key determinants of cost effectiveness were the time horizon, the progression of patients after stopping treatment, differential discount rates, and the price of the treatments.ConclusionsCost effectiveness varied markedly between the interventions. Uncertainty around point estimates was substantial. This uncertainty could be reduced by conducting research on the true magnitude of the effect of these drugs, the progression of patients after stopping treatment, the costs of care, and the quality of life of the patients. Price was the key modifiable determinant of the cost effectiveness of these treatments.

What is already known on this topic

Interferon beta and glatiramer acetate are the only disease modifying therapies used to treat multiple sclerosisEconomic evaluations of these drugs have had flaws in the specification of the course of the disease, efficacy, duration of treatment, mortality, and the analysis of uncertaintyNone of the existing estimates of cost effectiveness can be viewed as robust

What this study adds

The cost per quality adjusted life year gained is unlikely to be less than £40 000 for interferon beta or glatiramer acetateExperience after stopping treatment is a key determinant of the cost effectiveness of these therapiesKey factors affecting point estimates of cost effectiveness are the cost of interferon beta and glatiramer acetate, the effect of these therapies on disease progression, and the time horizon evaluated     

Aromatase inhibitors--socioeconomical issues

With costs of health care in general and for cancer therapy in particular escalating due to implementation of novel compounds, there is an increasing focus on therapy costs in most countries. A common way of assessing therapeutic utility versus cost is by assessing cost per additional life year gained or cost per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained with a novel therapy. While endocrine therapy in general is associated with low costs, the fact that aromatase inhibitors are administered over several years to each patient in the adjuvant setting, together with the substantial number of postmenopausal breast cancer patients that are candidates for adjuvant treatment with aromatase inhibitors, advocates critical examination of cost–utilities related to implementation of such therapy in the adjuvant setting. While cost–utility estimates for treatment with aromatase inhibitors in the adjuvant setting look favorable, the estimates are sensitive to variations with respect to long-term benefits but also side effects. For patient groups with a low-risk of relapse but also patients with a limited life expectancy due to high age, cost–utility estimates may exceed the upper limits generally proposed for costs per quality-adjusted life year gained.     

How can we best prolong life? Benefits of coronary risk factor reduction in non-diabetic and diabetic subjects.

OBJECTIVE--To compare the theoretical benefits of different approaches to reduce risk factors for coronary heart disease in subjects at risk. DESIGN--The results of findings from meta-analyses of intervention studies on cause specific mortality and of observational studies on smokers and ex-smokers were applied to observational data on 10 year cause specific mortality derived from the multiple risk factor intervention trial. Lifetable analyses were used to estimate gains in life expectancy. SUBJECTS--Diabetic and non-diabetic men initially 35-57 years of age. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--10 year mortality from coronary heart disease, 10 year total mortality, man years of intervention to prevent one death and one death from coronary heart disease, gain in life expectancy, and drug costs per year of additional life in diabetic and non-diabetic men of 45. RESULTS--In non-diabetic men a 10 year mortality from coronary heart disease of 14.4 per 1000 would be reduced by a mean of 0.58, 0.82, 2.64, and 2.74 per 1000 by antihypertensive treatment, lowering cholesterol concentration, taking aspirin, and stopping smoking respectively; a 10 year total mortality of 44.1 per 1000 would fall by a mean of 1.06, 5.16, and 8.65 per 1000 with antihypertensive and aspirin treatment and stopping smoking respectively and increased by a mean of 0.07 per 1000 with the lowering of cholesterol concentration. In diabetic men the reductions in mortality from coronary heart disease would be between three and five times greater, and total mortality would show mean reductions of 5.81, 0.56, 16.17, and 20.84 per 1000 respectively, with all interventions of significant benefit except the lowering of cholesterol concentration. Between 2400 and 3800 man years of pharmacological intervention were calculated as being necessary to prevent one death from coronary heart disease in a non-diabetic man, and between 800 and 1200 man years in a diabetic man. The loss of life expectancy associated with smoking and hypertension is greater than that accruing from hypercholesterolaemia, but stopping smoking would prolong life by a mean of around four years in a 45 year old non-diabetic man and three years in a diabetic man, whereas aspirin and antihypertensive treatment would provide approximately one year of additional life expectancy in both categories. CONCLUSIONS--Studies to date have shown little impact of drugs that lower cholesterol concentration and blood pressure on either coronary heart disease or total mortality. Although new treatments for hypercholesterolaemia and hypertension might help prevent coronary heart disease, other approaches to reduce the burden of premature death are required.     

Cost effectiveness analysis of a randomised trial of acupuncture for chronic headache in primary care

Objective To evaluate the cost effectiveness of acupuncture in the management of chronic headache.Design Cost effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial.Setting General practices in England and Wales.Participants 401 patients with chronic headache, predominantly migraine.Interventions Patients were randomly allocated to receive up to 12 acupuncture treatments over three months from appropriately trained physiotherapists, or to usual care alone.Main outcome measure Incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained.Results Total costs during the one year period of the study were on average higher for the acupuncture group (£403; $768; €598) than for controls (£217) because of the acupuncture practitioners'' costs. The mean health gain from acupuncture during the one year of the trial was 0.021 quality adjusted life years (QALYs), leading to a base case estimate of £9180 per QALY gained. This result was robust to sensitivity analysis. Cost per QALY dropped substantially when the analysis incorporated likely QALY differences for the years after the trial.Conclusions Acupuncture for chronic headache improves health related quality of life at a small additional cost; it is relatively cost effective compared with a number of other interventions provided by the NHS.     

An economic evaluation of thrombolysis in a remote rural community.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost effectiveness of community thrombolysis relative to hospital thrombolysis by investigating the extra costs and benefits of a policy of community thrombolysis, then establishing the extra cost per life saved by community thrombolysis. DESIGN: Economic evaluation based on the results of the Grampian region early anistreplase trial. SETTING: 29 rural general practices and one secondary care provider in Grampian, Scotland. SUBJECTS: 311 patients recruited to the Grampian region early anistreplase trial. INTERVENTIONS: Intravenous anistreplase given either by general practitioners or secondary care clinicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Survival at 4 years and costs of administration of thrombolysis. RESULTS: Relative to hospital thrombolysis, community thrombolysis gives an additional probability of survival at 4 years of 11% (95% confidence interval 1% to 22%) at an additional cost of 425 pounds per patient. This gives a marginal cost of life saved at 4 years of 3,890 pounds (1,990 pounds to 42,820 pounds). CONCLUSIONS: The cost per life saved by community thrombolysis is modest compared with, for example, the cost of changing the thrombolytic drug used in hospital from streptokinase to alteplase.     

Screening for future cardiovascular disease using age alone compared with multiple risk factors and age

Background

Risk factors such as blood pressure and serum cholesterol are used, with age, in screening for future cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. The value of using these risk factors with age compared with using age alone is not known. We compared screening for future CVD events using age alone with screening using age and multiple risk factors based on regular Framingham risk assessments.

Methods

Ten-year CVD risk was estimated using Framingham risk equations in a hypothetical sample population of 500,000 people aged 0–89 years. Risk estimates were used to identify individuals who did and did not have a CVD event over a ten-year period. For screening using age alone (age screening) and screening using multiple risk factors and age (Framingham screening) we estimated the (i) detection rate (sensitivity); (ii) false–positive rate; (iii) proportion of CVD-free years of life lost in affected individuals with positive results (person-years detection rate); and (iv) cost per CVD-free life year gained from preventive treatment.

Results

Age screening using a cut-off of 55 years detected 86% of all first CVD events arising in the population every year and 72% of CVD-free years of life lost for a 24% false-positive rate; for five yearly Framingham screening the false-positive rate was 21% for the same 86% detection rate. The estimated cost per CVD-free year of life gained was £2,000 for age screening and £2,200 for Framingham screening if a Framingham screen costs £150 and the annual cost of preventive treatment is £200.

Conclusion

Age screening for future CVD events is simpler than Framingham screening with a similar screening performance and cost-effectiveness. It avoids blood tests and medical examinations. The advantages of age screening in the prevention of heart attack and stroke warrant considering its use in preference to multiple risk factor screening.