Nolte Julia E H, Neumann Till, Manne Jennifer M, Lo Janet, Neumann Anja, Mostardt Sarah, Abbara Suhny, Hoffmann Udo, Brady Thomas J, Wasem Juergen, Grinspoon Steven K, Gazelle G Scott, Goehler Alexander
Institute for Technology Assessment, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach Foundation-Institute for Health Systems Management, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
West German Heart Institute, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2014 Aug;21(8):972-9. doi: 10.1177/2047487313483607. Epub 2013 Mar 28.
HIV-infected patients are at increased risk of coronary artery disease (CAD). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of cardiac screening for HIV-positive men at intermediate or greater CAD risk.
We developed a lifetime microsimulation model of CAD incidence and progression in HIV-infected men.
Input parameters were derived from two HIV cohort studies and the literature. We compared no CAD screening with stress testing and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)-based strategies. Patients with test results indicating 3-vessel/left main CAD underwent invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and received coronary artery bypass graft surgery. In the stress testing + medication and CCTA + medication strategies, patients with 1-2-vessel CAD results received lifetime medical treatment without further diagnostics whereas in the stress testing + intervention and CCTA + intervention strategies, patients with these results underwent ICA and received percutaneous coronary intervention.
Compared to no screening, the stress testing + medication, stress testing + intervention, CCTA + medication, and CCTA + intervention strategies resulted in 14, 11, 19, and 14 quality-adjusted life days per patient and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 49,261, 57,817, 34,887 and 56,518 Euros per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), respectively. Screening only at higher CAD risk thresholds was more cost-effective. Repeated screening was clinically beneficial compared to one-time screening, but only stress testing + medication every 5 years remained cost-effective. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 83,000 €/QALY (∼ 100,000 US$/QALY), implementing any CAD screening was cost-effective with a probability of 75-95%.
Screening HIV-positive men for CAD would be clinically beneficial and comes at a cost-effectiveness ratio comparable to other accepted interventions in HIV care.
HIV感染患者患冠状动脉疾病(CAD)的风险增加。我们评估了对处于中度或更高CAD风险的HIV阳性男性进行心脏筛查的成本效益。
我们建立了一个HIV感染男性CAD发病率和进展的终身微观模拟模型。
输入参数来自两项HIV队列研究和文献。我们比较了不进行CAD筛查与基于负荷试验和冠状动脉计算机断层扫描血管造影(CCTA)的策略。测试结果表明有三支血管/左主干CAD的患者接受了有创冠状动脉造影(ICA)并接受了冠状动脉搭桥手术。在负荷试验+药物治疗和CCTA+药物治疗策略中,有1-2支血管CAD结果的患者接受终身药物治疗而无需进一步诊断,而在负荷试验+干预和CCTA+干预策略中,有这些结果的患者接受ICA并接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗。
与不筛查相比,负荷试验+药物治疗、负荷试验+干预、CCTA+药物治疗和CCTA+干预策略分别使每位患者的质量调整生命天数增加了14、11、19和14天,每质量调整生命年(QALY)的增量成本效益比分别为49,261、57,817、34,887和56,518欧元。仅在更高的CAD风险阈值下进行筛查更具成本效益。与一次性筛查相比进行重复筛查在临床上有益,但只有每5年进行一次负荷试验+药物治疗仍具有成本效益。在支付意愿阈值为83,000€/QALY(约100,000美元/QALY)时,实施任何CAD筛查具有成本效益的概率为75-95%。
对HIV阳性男性进行CAD筛查在临床上是有益的,其成本效益比与HIV治疗中其他公认的干预措施相当。