Indian School of Business, Hyderabad, IN.
Max Institute of Healhcare Management, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, IN.
Glob Heart. 2021 May 10;16(1):37. doi: 10.5334/gh.952.
Despite the availability of effective and affordable treatments, only 14% of hypertensive Indians have controlled blood pressure. Increased hypertension treatment coverage (the proportion of individuals initiated on treatment) and adherence (proportion of patients taking medicines as recommended) promise population health gains. However, governments and other payers will not invest in a large-scale hypertension control program unless it is both affordable and effective.
To investigate if a national hypertension control intervention implemented across the private and public sector facilities in India could save overall costs of CVD prevention and treatment.
We developed a discrete-time microsimulation model to assess the cost-effectiveness of population-level hypertension control intervention in India for combinations of treatment coverage and adherence targets. Input clinical parameters specific to India were obtained from large-scale surveys such as the Global Burden of Disease as well as local clinical trials. Input hypertensive medication cost parameters were based on government contracts. The model projected antihypertensive treatment costs, avoided CVD care costs, changes in disability-adjusted life year (DALYs) and incremental cost per DALY averted (represented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio or ICER) over 20 years.
Over 20 years, at 70% coverage and adherence, the hypertension control intervention would avert 1.68% DALYs and be cost-saving overall. Increasing adherence (while keeping coverage constant) resulted in greater improvement in cost savings compared to increasing coverage (while keeping adherence constant). Results were most sensitive to the cost of antihypertensive medication, but the intervention remained highly cost-effective under all one-way sensitivity analyses.
A national hypertension control intervention in India would most likely be budget neutral or cost-saving if the intervention can achieve and maintain high levels of both treatment coverage and adherence.
尽管有有效且负担得起的治疗方法,但印度只有 14%的高血压患者血压得到了控制。增加高血压治疗覆盖率(开始治疗的人数比例)和依从性(按建议服用药物的患者比例)有望带来人群健康收益。然而,除非该计划既负担得起又有效,否则政府和其他付款人不会投资于大规模的高血压控制计划。
研究在印度私营和公共部门医疗机构实施的全国性高血压控制干预措施是否可以节省 CVD 预防和治疗的总体成本。
我们开发了一个离散时间微观模拟模型,以评估在印度实施的针对治疗覆盖率和依从性目标的人群水平高血压控制干预措施的成本效益。具体针对印度的临床参数输入来自全球疾病负担等大型调查以及当地临床试验。高血压药物成本参数输入基于政府合同。该模型预测了抗高血压治疗成本、避免 CVD 护理成本、残疾调整生命年 (DALY) 的变化以及每避免一个 DALY 的增量成本(表示为增量成本效益比或 ICER),预测期为 20 年。
在 20 年内,以 70%的覆盖率和依从性,高血压控制干预将避免 1.68%的 DALY,总体上可以节省成本。与增加覆盖率(同时保持依从性不变)相比,增加依从性(同时保持覆盖率不变)会导致成本节省的更大改善。结果对降压药物的成本最为敏感,但在所有单向敏感性分析下,该干预措施仍然具有高度成本效益。
如果干预措施能够实现并保持高覆盖率和高依从性,那么印度的全国性高血压控制干预措施很可能会保持预算平衡或节省成本。