Galper Benjamin Z, Wang Y Claire, Einstein Andrew J
Brigham and Women's Hospital, Division of Cardiology, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Columbia University Medical Center, Mailman School of Public Health, New York, New York, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 30;10(9):e0138092. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138092. eCollection 2015.
Several approaches have been proposed for risk-stratification and primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD), but their comparative and cost-effectiveness is unknown.
We constructed a state-transition microsimulation model to compare multiple approaches to the primary prevention of CHD in a simulated cohort of men aged 45-75 and women 55-75. Risk-stratification strategies included the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines on the treatment of blood cholesterol, the Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III guidelines, and approaches based on coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring and C-reactive protein (CRP). Additionally we assessed a treat-all strategy in which all individuals were prescribed either moderate-dose or high-dose statins and all males received low-dose aspirin. Outcome measures included CHD events, costs, medication-related side effects, radiation-attributable cancers, and quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) over a 30-year timeframe.
Treat-all with high-dose statins dominated all other strategies for both men and women, gaining 15.7 million QALYs, preventing 7.3 million myocardial infarctions, and saving over $238 billion, compared to the status quo, far outweighing its associated adverse events including bleeding, hepatitis, myopathy, and new-onset diabetes. ACC/AHA guidelines were more cost-effective than ATP III guidelines for both men and women despite placing 8.7 million more people on statins. For women at low CHD risk, treat-all with high-dose statins was more likely to cause a statin-related adverse event than to prevent a CHD event.
Despite leading to a greater proportion of the population placed on statin therapy, the ACC/AHA guidelines are more cost-effective than ATP III. Even so, at generic prices, treating all men and women with statins and all men with low-dose aspirin appears to be more cost-effective than all risk-stratification approaches for the primary prevention of CHD. Especially for low-CHD risk women, decisions on the appropriate primary prevention strategy should be based on shared decision making between patients and healthcare providers.
已提出多种用于冠心病(CHD)风险分层和一级预防的方法,但其比较效果和成本效益尚不清楚。
我们构建了一个状态转换微观模拟模型,以比较在模拟的45 - 75岁男性和55 - 75岁女性队列中,多种冠心病一级预防方法。风险分层策略包括2013年美国心脏病学会/美国心脏协会(ACC/AHA)血液胆固醇治疗指南、成人治疗小组(ATP)III指南,以及基于冠状动脉钙化(CAC)评分和C反应蛋白(CRP)的方法。此外,我们评估了一种全治疗策略,即所有个体均被处方中等剂量或高剂量他汀类药物,且所有男性均接受低剂量阿司匹林治疗。结局指标包括30年时间范围内的冠心病事件、成本、药物相关副作用、辐射所致癌症以及质量调整生命年(QALY)。
与现状相比,高剂量他汀类药物全治疗策略在男性和女性中均优于所有其他策略,获得1570万个QALY,预防730万次心肌梗死,并节省超过2.38万亿美元,远远超过其包括出血、肝炎、肌病和新发糖尿病在内的相关不良事件。尽管ACC/AHA指南使接受他汀类药物治疗的人数增加了870万,但对于男性和女性而言,其成本效益均高于ATP III指南。对于冠心病低风险女性,高剂量他汀类药物全治疗策略导致他汀类药物相关不良事件的可能性高于预防冠心病事件的可能性。
尽管ACC/AHA指南导致接受他汀类药物治疗的人群比例更高,但其成本效益高于ATP III指南。即便如此,以通用价格计算,用他汀类药物治疗所有男性和女性以及用低剂量阿司匹林治疗所有男性,对于冠心病一级预防而言,似乎比所有风险分层方法更具成本效益。特别是对于冠心病低风险女性,合适的一级预防策略决策应基于患者与医疗服务提供者之间的共同决策。