Background: More than half of all heart disease and stroke are attributable to hypertension, which is associated with approximately 10% of direct medical costs globally. Clinical trial evidence has demonstrated that the benefits of pharmacist intervention, including education, consultation and/or prescribing, can help to reduce blood pressure; a recent Canadian trial found an 18.3 mmHg reduction in systolic blood pressure associated with pharmacist care and prescribing. The objective of this study was to evaluate the economic impact of such an intervention in a Canadian setting. Methods: A Markov cost-effectiveness model was developed to extrapolate potential differences in long-term cardiovascular and renal disease outcomes, using Framingham risk equations and other published risk equations. A range of values for systolic blood pressure reduction was considered (7.6-18.3 mmHg) to reflect the range of potential interventions and available evidence. The model incorporated health outcomes, costs and quality of life to estimate an overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Costs considered included direct medical costs as well as the costs associated with implementing the pharmacist intervention strategy. Results: For a systolic blood pressure reduction of 18.3 mmHg, the estimated impact is 0.21 fewer cardiovascular events per person and, discounted at 5% per year, 0.3 additional life-years, 0.4 additional quality-adjusted life-years and $6,364 cost savings over a lifetime. Thus, the intervention is economically dominant, being both more effective and cost-saving relative to usual care. Discussion: Across a range of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses of key parameters and assumptions, pharmacist intervention remained both effective and cost-saving. Conclusion: Comprehensive pharmacist care of hypertension, including patient education and prescribing, has the potential to offer both health benefits and cost savings to Canadians and, as such, has important public health implications.
Systolic blood pressure reduction during the first 24 h in acute heart failure admission: friend or foe?
