Which interventions offer best value for money in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease?

BackgroundDespite many decades of declining mortality rates in the Western world, cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death worldwide. In this research we evaluate the optimal mix of lifestyle, pharmaceutical and population-wide interventions for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.Methods and FindingsIn a discrete time Markov model we simulate the ischaemic heart disease and stroke outcomes and cost impacts of intervention over the lifetime of all Australian men and women, aged 35 to 84 years, who have never experienced a heart disease or stroke event. Best value for money is achieved by mandating moderate limits on salt in the manufacture of bread, margarine and cereal. A combination of diuretic, calcium channel blocker, ACE inhibitor and low-cost statin, for everyone with at least 5% five-year risk of cardiovascular disease, is also cost-effective, but lifestyle interventions aiming to change risky dietary and exercise behaviours are extremely poor value for money and have little population health benefit.ConclusionsThere is huge potential for improving efficiency in cardiovascular disease prevention in Australia. A tougher approach from Government to mandating limits on salt in processed foods and reducing excessive statin prices, and a shift away from lifestyle counselling to more efficient absolute risk-based prescription of preventive drugs, could cut health care costs while improving population health.<br /

Cost-effectiveness of dexamphetamine and methylphenidate for the treatment of childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Objective: To analyze from a health sector perspective the cost-effectiveness of dexamphetamine (DEX) and methylphenidate (MPH) interventions to treat childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), compared to current practice. Method: Children eligible for the interventions are those aged between 4 and 17 years in 2000, who had ADHD and were seeking care for emotional or behavioural problems, but were not receiving stimulant medication. To determine health benefit, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed for DEX and MPH, and the effect sizes were translated into utility values. An assessment on second stage filter criteria ('equity', 'strength of evidence', 'feasibility' and 'acceptability to stakeholders') is also undertaken to incorporate additional factors that impact on resource allocation decisions. Simulation modelling techniques are used to present a 95% uncertainty interval (UI) around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is calculated in cost (in A$) per DALY averted. Results: The ICER for DEX is A$4100/DALY saved (95% UI: negative to A$14 000) and for MPH is A$15 000/DALY saved (95% UI: A$9100-22 000). DEX is more costly than MPH for the government, but much less costly for the patient. Conclusions: MPH and DEX are cost-effective interventions for childhood ADHD. DEX is more cost-effective than MPH, although if MPH were listed at a lower price on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme it would become more cost-effective. Increased uptake of stimulants for ADHD would require policy change. However, the medication of children and wider availability of stimulants may concern parents and the community