Skip to main content
×
Home

The cost-effectiveness of the SPHERE intervention for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease

  • Paddy Gillespie (a1), Eamon O'Shea (a1), Andrew W. Murphy (a1), Mary C. Byrne (a1), Molly Byrne (a1), Susan M. Smith (a2) and Margaret E. Cupples (a3)...
Abstract

Objectives: The Secondary Prevention of Heart disEase in geneRal practicE (SPHERE) trial has recently reported. This study examines the cost-effectiveness of the SPHERE intervention in both healthcare systems on the island of Ireland.

Methods: Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. A probabilistic model was developed to combine within-trial and beyond-trial impacts of treatment to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits of two secondary prevention strategies: Intervention - tailored practice and patient care plans; and Control - standardized usual care.

Results: The intervention strategy resulted in mean cost savings per patient of €512.77 (95 percent confidence interval [CI], −1086.46–91.98) and an increase in mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient of 0.0051 (95 percent CI, −0.0101–0.0200), when compared with the control strategy. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 94 percent if decision makers are willing to pay €45,000 per additional QALY.

Conclusions: Decision makers in both settings must determine whether the level of evidence presented is sufficient to justify the adoption of the SPHERE intervention in clinical practice.

Copyright
References
Hide All
1. Barry M, Tilson L. Recent developments in pricing and reimbursement of medicines in Ireland. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2007;7:605611.
2. Brazier JE, Roberts J. Estimating a preference-based index from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004;42:851859.
3. Campbell MK, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, et al. CONSORT statement: Extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ. 2004;328:702708.
4. Central Bank of Ireland. Dublin (www.centralbank.ie). (Accessed June 2008)
5. Central Statistics Office. Dublin (www.cso.ie). (Accessed June 2008)
6. Clark AM, Hartling L, Vandermeer B, McAlister FA. Meta-analysis: Secondary prevention programs for patients with coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143:659672.
7. Cupples ME, Byrne MC, Smith SM, Leathem C, Murphy AW. Secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in different primary healthcare systems, with and without pay-for-performance. Heart. 2008;94:15941600.
8. D'Agostino RB, Russell M, Huse DM, et al. Primary and subsequent coronary risk appraisal: New results from The Framingham Study. Am Heart J. 2000;139:272281.
9. De Backer G, Ambrosioni E, Borch-Johnsen K, et al. European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. Eur Heart J. 2003;24:16011610.
10. Department of Health and Children. The National Heartwatch Programme: Clinical report - March 2003 to December 2005. Dublin; 2006.
11. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien J, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. New York: Oxford University Press;2005.
12. Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SS, Polsky D. Economic evaluation in clinical trials. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007.
13. Hardin JW, Hilbe JM. Generalised estimating equations. London: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press; 2003.
14. Johnston K, Gray A, Moher M, et al. Reporting the cost-effectiveness of interventions with nonsignificant effect differences: Example from the a trial of secondary prevention of heart disease. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:476489.
15. Ketola E, Laatikainen T, Vartianinen E. Evaluating risk for cardiovascular diseases -vain or value? How do different cardiovascular risk scores act in real life. Eur J Public Health. 2010;20:107112.
16. Lacey EA, Walters SJ. Continuing inequality: Gender and social class influences on self perceived health after a heart attack. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57:622627.
17. Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher M. Estimating mean QALYs in trial based cost effectiveness analysis: The importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ. 2005;14:487496.
18. Murphy AW, Cupples ME, Smith S, et al. Secondary prevention of heart disease in general practice: A cluster randomised controlled trial of tailored practice and patient care plans. BMJ. 2009;339:b4220.
19. Netten A, Curtis J. Unit costs of health and social care. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit. University of Kent; 2006.
20. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2004. www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=201974 (reference 0515).
21. O'Neill C, Normand C, Cupples M, McKnight A. Cost effectiveness of personal health education in primary care for people with angina in the Greater Belfast area of Northern Ireland. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1996;50:538540.
22. Raftery JP, Yao GL, Murchie P, Campbell NC, Ritchie LD. Cost effectiveness of nurse led secondary prevention clinics for coronary heart disease in primary care: Follow up of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2005;330:707.
23. Robinson M, Palmer S, Sculpher M, et al. Cost effectiveness of alternative strategies for the initial medical management of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome: Systematic review and decision-analytical modelling. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9:iii-iv, ix-xi, 1158.
24. Turner DA, Paul SK, Stone M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a disease management programme for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and heart failure in primary care. Heart. 2008;94:16011606.
25. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220233.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary Materials

Gillespie et al. supplementary material
Tables and figures

 Word (224 KB)
224 KB

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 5
Total number of PDF views: 25 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 209 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 20th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.