Using stress testing to guide primary prevention of coronary heart disease among intermediate-risk patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive stress testing might guide the use of aspirin and statins for primary prevention of coronary heart disease, but it is unclear if such a strategy would be cost effective. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared the status quo, in which the current national use of aspirin and statins was simulated, with 3 other strategies: (1) full implementation of Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines, (2) a treat-all strategy in which all intermediate-risk persons received statins (men and women) and aspirin (men only), and (3) a test-and-treat strategy in which all persons with an intermediate risk of coronary heart disease underwent stress testing and those with a positive test were treated with high-intensity statins (men and women) and aspirin (men only). Healthcare costs, coronary heart disease events, and quality-adjusted life years from 2011 to 2040 were projected. Under a variety of assumptions, the treat-all strategy was the most effective and least expensive strategy. Stress electrocardiography was more effective and less expensive than other test-and-treat strategies, but it was less expensive than treat all only if statin cost exceeded $3.16/pill or if testing increased adherence from <22% to >75%. However, stress electrocardiography could be cost effective in persons initially nonadherent to the treat-all strategy if it raised their adherence to 5% and cost saving if it raised their adherence to 13%. CONCLUSIONS: When generic high-potency statins are available, noninvasive cardiac stress testing to target preventive medications is not cost effective unless it substantially improves adherence.

Cost-effectiveness of statin therapy for primary prevention in a low-cost statin era.

BACKGROUND: With wide availability of low-cost generics, primary prevention with statins has become less expensive. We projected the cost-effectiveness of expanded statin prescribing strategies using low-cost generics and identified conditions under which aggressive prescribing ceases to be cost-effective. METHODS AND RESULTS: We simulated expanded statin prescribing strategies with the coronary heart disease policy model, a Markov model of the US population >35 years of age. If statins cost $4/mo, treatment thresholds of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol >160 mg/dL for low-risk persons (0 to 1 risk factor), >130 mg/dL for moderate-risk persons (≥2 risk factors and 10-year risk <10%), and >100 mg/dL for moderately high-risk persons (≥2 risk factors and 10-year risk >10%) would reduce annual healthcare costs by $430 million compared with Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Lowering thresholds to >130 mg/dL for persons with 0 risk factors and >100 mg/dL for persons with 1 risk factor and treating all moderate- and moderately high-risk persons regardless of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol would provide additional health benefits for $9900 per quality-adjusted life-year. These findings are insensitive to most adverse effect assumptions (including statin-associated diabetes mellitus and severe hypothetical effects) but are sensitive to large reductions in the efficacy of statins or to a long-term disutility burden for which a patient would trade 30 to 80 days of life to avoid 30 years of statins. CONCLUSIONS: Low-cost statins are cost-effective for most persons with even modestly elevated cholesterol or any coronary heart disease risk factors if they do not mind taking a pill daily. Adverse effects are unlikely to outweigh benefits in any subgroup in which statins are found to be efficacious.

Beta-blockers for chest pain associated with recent cocaine use.

BACKGROUND: Although beta-blockers prevent adverse events after myocardial infarction, they are contraindicated when chest pain is associated with recent cocaine use. Recommendations against this use of beta-blockers are based on animal studies, small human experiments, and anecdote. We sought to test the hypothesis that beta-blockers are safe in this setting. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients admitted to the San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, California, with chest pain and urine toxicologic test results positive for cocaine, from January 2001 to December 2006. Mortality data were collected from the National Death Index. RESULTS: Of 331 patients with chest pain in the setting of recent cocaine use, 151 (46%) received a beta-blocker in the emergency department. There were no meaningful differences in electrocardiographic changes, troponin levels, length of stay, use of vasopressor agents, intubation, ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, or death between those who did and did not receive a beta-blocker. After adjusting for potential confounders, systolic blood pressure significantly decreased a mean 8.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, 14.7-2.5 mm Hg) in those receiving a beta-blocker in the emergency department compared with those who received their first beta-blocker in the hospital ward (P = .006). Over a median follow-up of 972 days (interquartile range, 555-1490 days), after adjusting for potential confounders, patients discharged on a beta-blocker regimen exhibited a significant reduction in cardiovascular death (hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.98) (P = .047). CONCLUSION: beta-Blockers do not appear to be associated with adverse events in patients with chest pain with recent cocaine use.

Prasugrel for acute coronary syndromes: faster, more potent, but higher bleeding risk.

Prasugrel (Effient) has been approved for reducing the risk of thrombotic complications in patients with acute coronary syndromes who are to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention. In a large clinical trial (N Engl J Med 2007; 357:2001-2005), prasugrel was superior to clopidogrel (Plavix), another drug of its class, in this situation. However, bleeding complications were more frequent with prasugrel, and so this drug should be avoided in patients at higher risk of bleeding.