Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a cardiovascular risk prediction algorithm for people with severe mental illness

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. S191-S191
Author(s):  
E. Zomer ◽  
D. Osborn ◽  
I. Nazareth ◽  
R. Blackburn ◽  
A. Burton ◽  
...  

IntroductionCardiovascular risk prediction tools are important for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention, however, which algorithms are appropriate for people with severe mental illness (SMI) is unclear.Objectives/aimsTo determine the cost-effectiveness using the net monetary benefit (NMB) approach of two bespoke SMI-specific risk algorithms compared to standard risk algorithms for primary CVD prevention in those with SMI, from an NHS perspective.MethodsA microsimulation model was populated with 1000 individuals with SMI from The Health Improvement Network Database, aged 30–74 years without CVD. Four cardiovascular risk algorithms were assessed; (1) general population lipid, (2) general population BMI, (3) SMI-specific lipid and (4) SMI-specific BMI, compared against no algorithm. At baseline, each cardiovascular risk algorithm was applied and those high-risk (> 10%) were assumed to be prescribed statin therapy, others received usual care. Individuals entered the model in a ‘healthy’ free of CVD health state and with each year could retain their current health state, have cardiovascular events (non-fatal/fatal) or die from other causes according to transition probabilities.ResultsThe SMI-specific BMI and general population lipid algorithms had the highest NMB of the four algorithms resulting in 12 additional QALYs and a cost saving of approximately £37,000 (US$ 58,000) per 1000 patients with SMI over 10 years.ConclusionsThe general population lipid and SMI-specific BMI algorithms performed equally well. The ease and acceptability of use of a SMI-specific BMI algorithm (blood tests not required) makes it an attractive algorithm to implement in clinical settings.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. e018181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ella Zomer ◽  
David Osborn ◽  
Irwin Nazareth ◽  
Ruth Blackburn ◽  
Alexandra Burton ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo determine the cost-effectiveness of two bespoke severe mental illness (SMI)-specific risk algorithms compared with standard risk algorithms for primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention in those with SMI.SettingPrimary care setting in the UK. The analysis was from the National Health Service perspective.Participants1000 individuals with SMI from The Health Improvement Network Database, aged 30–74 years and without existing CVD, populated the model.InterventionsFour cardiovascular risk algorithms were assessed: (1) general population lipid, (2) general population body mass index (BMI), (3) SMI-specific lipid and (4) SMI-specific BMI, compared against no algorithm. At baseline, each cardiovascular risk algorithm was applied and those considered high risk (>10%) were assumed to be prescribed statin therapy while others received usual care.Primary and secondary outcome measuresQuality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs were accrued for each algorithm including no algorithm, and cost-effectiveness was calculated using the net monetary benefit (NMB) approach. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test assumptions made and uncertainty around parameter estimates.ResultsThe SMI-specific BMI algorithm had the highest NMB resulting in 15 additional QALYs and a cost saving of approximately £53 000 per 1000 patients with SMI over 10 years, followed by the general population lipid algorithm (13 additional QALYs and a cost saving of £46 000).ConclusionsThe general population lipid and SMI-specific BMI algorithms performed equally well. The ease and acceptability of use of an SMI-specific BMI algorithm (blood tests not required) makes it an attractive algorithm to implement in clinical settings.


2015 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 143 ◽  
Author(s):  
David P. J. Osborn ◽  
Sarah Hardoon ◽  
Rumana Z. Omar ◽  
Richard I. G. Holt ◽  
Michael King ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 167 (6) ◽  
pp. 2904-2911 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stig Lyngbæk ◽  
Jacob L. Marott ◽  
Thomas Sehestedt ◽  
Tine W. Hansen ◽  
Michael H. Olsen ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (30) ◽  
pp. 2428-2437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Blankenberg ◽  
Veikko Salomaa ◽  
Nataliya Makarova ◽  
Francisco Ojeda ◽  
Philipp Wild ◽  
...  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. e0210329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara J. Baart ◽  
Veerle Dam ◽  
Luuk J. J. Scheres ◽  
Johanna A. A. G. Damen ◽  
René Spijker ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jussi A. Hernesniemi ◽  
Juho Tynkkynen ◽  
Aki S. Havulinna ◽  
Niku Oksala ◽  
Erkki Vartiainen ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bengt Wahlin ◽  
Lena Innala ◽  
Staffan Magnusson ◽  
Bozena Möller ◽  
Torgny Smedby ◽  
...  

Objective.Cardiovascular (CV) risk estimation calculators for the general population do not perform well in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). An RA-specific risk calculator has been developed, but did not perform better than a risk calculator for the general population when validated in a heterogeneous multinational cohort.Methods.In a cohort of patients with new-onset RA from northern Sweden (n = 665), the risk of CV disease was estimated by the Expanded Cardiovascular Risk Prediction Score for Rheumatoid Arthritis (ERS-RA) and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association algorithm (ACC/AHA). The ACC/AHA estimation was analyzed, both as crude data and when adjusted according to the recommendations by the European League Against Rheumatism (ACC/AHA × 1.5). ERS-RA was calculated using 2 variants: 1 from patient and physician reports of hypertension (HTN) and hyperlipidemia [ERS-RA (reported)] and 1 from assessments of blood pressure (BP) and blood lipids [ERS-RA (measured)]. The estimations were compared with observed CV events.Results.All variants of risk calculators underestimated the CV risk. Discrimination was good for all risk calculators studied. Performance of all risk calculators was poorer in patients with a high grade of inflammation, whereas ACC/AHA × 1.5 performed best in the high-inflammatory patients. In those patients with an estimated risk of 5–15%, no risk calculator performed well.Conclusion.ERS-RA underestimated the risk of a CV event in our cohort of patients, especially when risk estimations were based on patient or physician reports of HTN and hyperlipidemia instead of assessment of BP and blood lipids. The performance of ERS-RA was no better than that of ACC/AHA × 1.5, and neither performed well in high-inflammatory patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document