Health benefits and cost-effectiveness of asymptomatic screening for hypertension and high cholesterol and aspirin counseling for primary prevention

Abstract

PURPOSE Our aim was to update estimates of the health and economic impact of clinical services recommended for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) for the comparative rankings of the National Commission on Prevention Priorities, and to explore differences in outcomes by sex and race/ethnicity. METHODS We used a single, integrated, microsimulation model to generate comparable results for 3 services recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force: aspirin counseling for the primary prevention of CVD and colorectal cancer, screening and treatment for lipid disorders (usually high cholesterol), and screening and treatment for hypertension. Analyses compare lifetime outcomes from the societal perspective for a US-representative birth cohort of 100, 000 persons with and without access to each clinical preventive service. Primary outcomes are health impact, measured by the net difference in lifetime qualityadjusted life years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness, measured in incremental cost per QALY or cost savings per person in 2012 dollars. Results are also presented for population subgroups defined by sex and race/ethnicity. RESULTS Health impact is highest for hypertension screening and treatment (15, 600 QALYs), but is closely followed by cholesterol screening and treatment (14, 300 QALYs). Aspirin counseling has a lower health impact (2, 200 QALYs) but is found to be cost saving ($31 saved per person). Cost-effectiveness for cholesterol and hypertension screening and treatment is $33, 800 per QALY and $48, 500 per QALY, respectively. Findings favor hypertension over cholesterol screening and treatment for women, and opportunities to reduce disease burden across all services are greatest for the non-Hispanic black population. CONCLUSIONS All 3 CVD preventive services continue to rank highly among other recommended preventive services for US adults, but individual priorities can be tailored in practice by taking a patient’s demographic characteristics and clinical objectives into account.