Key result
Preventive cardiovascular screening at age 40 with a 2% risk threshold yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €34,996 per QALY compared with no screening.
Why the study?
Preeclampsia is a female-specific cardiovascular disease risk factor, but whether early preventive risk screening combined with risk-based lifestyle interventions is beneficial and cost-effective is unknown.
Does early cardiovascular disease risk screening and lifestyle intervention improve quality-adjusted life years and cost-effectiveness in women with a history of preeclampsia?
Does early cardiovascular disease risk screening and lifestyle intervention improve quality-adjusted life years and cost-effectiveness in women with a history of preeclampsia?
Early cardiovascular disease risk screening and lifestyle interventions in women with a history of preeclampsia yield small long-term health benefits but are relatively unfavorable in terms of cost-effectiveness.
May not support routine screening due to unfavorable cost-effectiveness; leaves open optimized strategies for post-preeclampsia women.
BACKGROUND: Preeclampsia is a female-specific risk factor for the development of future cardiovascular disease. Whether early preventive cardiovascular disease risk screenings combined with risk-based lifestyle interventions in women with previous preeclampsia are beneficial and cost-effective is unknown. METHODS: A micro-simulation model was developed to assess the life-long impact of preventive cardiovascular screening strategies initiated after women experienced preeclampsia during pregnancy. Screening was started at the age of 30 or 40 years and repeated every five years. Data (initial and follow-up) from women with a history of preeclampsia was used to calculate 10-year cardiovascular disease risk estimates according to Framingham Risk Score. An absolute risk threshold of 2% was evaluated for treatment selection, i.e. lifestyle interventions (e.g. increasing physical activity). Screening benefits were assessed in terms of costs and quality-adjusted-life-years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared with no screening. RESULTS: Expected health outcomes for no screening are 27.35 quality-adjusted-life-years and increase to 27.43 quality-adjusted-life-years (screening at 30 years with 2% threshold). The expected costs for no screening are €9426 and around €13,881 for screening at 30 years (for a 2% threshold). Preventive screening at 40 years with a 2% threshold has the most favourable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, i.e. €34,996/quality-adjusted-life-year, compared with other screening scenarios and no screening. CONCLUSIONS: Early cardiovascular disease risk screening followed by risk-based lifestyle interventions may lead to small long-term health benefits in women with a history of preeclampsia. However, the cost-effectiveness of a lifelong cardiovascular prevention programme starting early after preeclampsia with risk-based lifestyle advice alone is relatively unfavourable. A combination of risk-based lifestyle advice plus medical therapy may be more beneficial.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lagerweij et al. (2020) studied History of preeclampsia. Preventive cardiovascular screening and lifestyle interventions vs. No screening was evaluated on Quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs). Preventive cardiovascular screening at age 40 with a 2% risk threshold yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €34,996 per QALY compared with no screening.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: