BackgroundMounting evidence shows that multi-intervention programmes for hypertension treatment are more effective than an isolated pharmacological strategy. Full economic evaluations of hypertension management programmes are scarce and contain methodological limitations. The aim of the study was to evaluate if a hypertension management programme for elderly patients is cost-effective compared to usual care from the perspective of a third-party payer.MethodsWe built a cost-effectiveness model using published evidence of effectiveness of a comprehensive hypertension programme vs. usual care for patients 65 years or older at a community hospital in Buenos Aires, Argentina. We explored incremental cost-effectiveness between groups. The model used a life-time framework adopting a third-party payer's perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated in International Dollars per life-year gained. We performed a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) to explore variable uncertainty.ResultsThe ICER for the base-case of the "Hypertension Programme" versus the "Usual care" approach was 1,124 International Dollars per life-year gained. PSA did not significantly influence results. The programme had a probability of 43% of being dominant (more effective and less costly) and, overall, 95% chance of being cost-effective.DiscussionResults showed that "Hypertension Programme" had high probabilities of being cost-effective under a wide range of scenarios. This is the first sound cost-effectiveness study to assess a comprehensive hypertension programme versus usual care. This study measures hard outcomes and explores robustness through a probabilistic sensitivity analysis.ConclusionsThe comprehensive hypertension programme had high probabilities of being cost-effective versus usual care. This study supports the idea that similar programmes could be the preferred strategy in countries and within health care systems where hypertension treatment for elderly patients is a standard practice.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundDifferent strategies have been proposed for the cardiovascular risk management of patients with psoriasis.ObjectiveTo estimate the cardiovascular risk and evaluate two cardiovascular prevention strategies in patients with psoriasis, analyzing which proportion of patients would be candidates to receive statin therapy.MethodsA retrospective cohort was selected from a secondary database. All patients >18 years with psoriasis without cardiovascular disease or lipid-lowering treatment were included. The atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease calculator (2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines) and the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation risk calculator (2016 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Atherosclerosis guidelines) were calculated. The SCORE risk value was adjusted by a multiplication factor of 1.5. The recommendations for the indication of statins suggested by both guidelines were analyzed.ResultsA total of 892 patients (mean age 59.9 ± 16.5 years, 54.5% women) were included. The median atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease calculator and Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation values were 13.4% (IQR 6.1–27.0%) and 1.9% (IQR 0.4–5.2), respectively. According to the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease calculator, 20.1%, 11.0%, 32.9%, and 36.4% of the population was classified at low, borderline, moderate, or high risk. Applying the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation, 26.5%, 42.9%, 20.8%, and 9.8% of patients were stratified as having low, moderate, high, or very high risk, respectively. The proportion of subjects with statin indication was similar using both strategies: 60.1% and 60.9% for the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and 2016 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Atherosclerosis guidelines, respectively.Study limitationsThis was a secondary database study. Data on the severity of psoriasis and pharmacological treatments were not included in the analysis.ConclusionThis population with psoriasis was mostly classified at moderate–high risk and the statin therapy indication was similar when applying the two strategies evaluated.

No abstract