Key result
Restrictive CVD risk assessment adds ~123 QALYs per 10,000 individuals over current practice.
Why the study?
Is a population approach with a polypill cost-effective compared to periodic risk assessment for prevention of cardiovascular disease in asymptomatic adults?
Is a population approach with a polypill cost-effective compared to periodic risk assessment for prevention of cardiovascular disease in asymptomatic adults?
Effect estimate: 123 QALYs gained per 10,000 individuals (95% CI -173 to 387)
Periodic risk assessment using lower risk thresholds (10%) is economically unattractive, and a population polypill approach is only cost-effective if drug prices are substantially reduced.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Restrictive risk assessment may optimize cost-effectiveness in primary CVD prevention; leaves open polypill viability without substantial drug price cuts.
Ferket et al. (2017) studied Cardiovascular disease prevention (n=259,146). Polypill and periodic risk assessment vs. Current practice was evaluated on Incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (123 QALYs gained per 10,000 individuals, 95% CI -173 to 387). Restrictive risk assessment (treatment at >20% 10-year CVD risk) was the optimal strategy, gaining 123 QALYs per 10,000 individuals at an extra cost of £1.45 million compared with current practice.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: