Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36239877›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2023

The cost-effectiveness of a uniform versus age-based threshold for one-off screening for prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Zuzana Špacírová, Stephen Kaptoge, Leticia García-Mochón, Miguel Rodríguez Barranco, María José Sánchez Pérez, Nicola P Bondonno, Anne Tjønneland, Elisabete Weiderpass, Sara Grioni, Jaime Espín and 11 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Zuzana ŠpacírováCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Avda Monforte de Lemos 3-5, 28029, Madrid, Spain. zuzana.spacirova.easp@juntadeandalucia.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2905-2934
Stephen KaptogeCardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, 2 Worts' Causeway, Cambridge, CB1 8RN, UK.
Leticia García-MochónCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Avda Monforte de Lemos 3-5, 28029, Madrid, Spain.
Miguel Rodríguez BarrancoCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Avda Monforte de Lemos 3-5, 28029, Madrid, Spain.
María José Sánchez PérezCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Avda Monforte de Lemos 3-5, 28029, Madrid, Spain.
Nicola P BondonnoThe Danish Cancer Society Research Centre, Strandboulevarden 49, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anne TjønnelandThe Danish Cancer Society Research Centre, Strandboulevarden 49, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Elisabete WeiderpassInternational Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France.
Sara GrioniFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, Via Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.
Jaime EspínCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Avda Monforte de Lemos 3-5, 28029, Madrid, Spain.
Carlotta SacerdoteUnit of Cancer Epidemiology, Città della Salute e della Scienza University-Hospital, Via Santena 7, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Catarina SchibornDepartment of Molecular Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke (DIfE), Arthur-Scheunert-Allee 114-116, 14558, Nuthetal, Germany.
Giovanna MasalaClinical Epidemiology Unit, Institute for Cancer Research, Prevention and Clinical Network - ISPRO, Florence, Italy.
Sandra M Colorado-YoharCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Avda Monforte de Lemos 3-5, 28029, Madrid, Spain.
Lois KimCardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, 2 Worts' Causeway, Cambridge, CB1 8RN, UK.
Karel G M MoonsJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, UMC Utrecht, Trecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Gunnar EngströmDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.
Matthias B SchulzeDepartment of Molecular Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke (DIfE), Arthur-Scheunert-Allee 114-116, 14558, Nuthetal, Germany.
Léa BressonUbisoft France, Floresco, 2 Avenue Pasteur, 94160, Saint-Mandé, France.
Concepción Moreno-IribasNavarra Public Health Institute, Pamplona, Spain.
David EpsteinIdiSNA, Navarra Institute for Health Research, Pamplona, Spain.

Funding

British Heart Foundation RG/13/13/30194British Heart Foundation RG/18/13/33946Cancer Research UK 14136Medical Research Council G0401527Medical Research Council G0800270Medical Research Council G1000143Medical Research Council MR/L003120/1Medical Research Council MR/M012190/1Medical Research Council MR/N003284/1World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this article was to assess the cost-effectiveness of screening strategies for cardiovascular diseases (CVD). A decision analytic model was constructed to estimate the costs and benefits of one-off screening strategies differentiated by screening age, sex and the threshold for initiating statin therapy ("uniform" or "age-adjusted") from the Spanish NHS perspective. The age-adjusted thresholds were configured so that the same number of people at high risk would be treated as under the uniform threshold. Health benefit was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Transition rates were estimated from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-CVD), a large multicentre nested case-cohort study with 12 years of follow-up. Unit costs of primary care, hospitalizations and CVD care were taken from the Spanish health system. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were employed. The comparator was no systematic screening program. The base case model showed that the most efficient one-off strategy is to screen both men and women at 40 years old using a uniform risk threshold for initiating statin treatment (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio of €3,274/QALY and €6,085/QALY for men and women, respectively). Re-allocating statin treatment towards younger individuals at high risk for their age and sex would not offset the benefit obtained using those same resources to treat older individuals. Results are sensitive to assumptions about CVD incidence rates. To conclude, one-off screening for CVD using a uniform risk threshold appears cost-effective compared with no systematic screening. These results should be evaluated in clinical studies.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsAdultCohort StudiesCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleProspective StudiesQuality-Adjusted Life YearsHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsCardiovascular diseaseCost-effectivenessFramingham risk scoreScreeningSpainStatins

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Texttitle and abstract
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.