Cost-effectiveness of Contemporary Statin Use Guidelines With or Without Coronary Artery Calcium Assessment in African American Individuals.

Importance: Clinical and economic consequences of statin treatment guidelines supplemented by targeted coronary artery calcium (CAC) assessment have not been evaluated in African American individuals, who are at increased risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and less likely than non-African American individuals to receive statin therapy. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline without a recommendation for CAC assessment vs the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline recommendation for use of a non-0 CAC score measured on one occasion to target generic-formulation, moderate-intensity statin treatment in African American individuals at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: A microsimulation model was designed to estimate life expectancy, quality of life, costs, and health outcomes over a lifetime horizon. African American-specific data from 472 participants in the Jackson Heart Study (JHS) at intermediate risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and other US population-specific data on individuals from published sources were used. Data analysis was conducted from November 11, 2018, to November 1, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), discounted at 3% annually. Results: In a model-based economic evaluation informed in part by follow-up data, the analysis was focused on 472 individuals in the JHS at intermediate risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; mean (SD) age was 63 (6.7) years. The sample included 243 women (51.5%) and 229 men (48.5%). Of these, 178 of 304 participants (58.6%) who underwent CAC assessment had a non-0 CAC score. In the base-case scenario, implementation of 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines without CAC assessment provided a greater quality-adjusted life expectancy (0.0027 QALY) at a higher cost ($428.97) compared with the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline strategy with CAC assessment, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $158 325/QALY, which is considered to represent low-value care by the ACC/AHA definition. The 2018 ACC/AHA guideline strategy with CAC assessment provided greater quality-adjusted life expectancy at a lower cost compared with the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines without CAC assessment when there was a strong patient preference to avoid use of daily medication therapy. In probability sensitivity analyses, the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline strategy with CAC assessment was cost-effective compared with the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines without CAC assessment in 76% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay value of $100 000/QALY when there was a preference to lose 2 weeks of perfect health to avoid 1 decade of daily therapy. Conclusions and Relevance: A CAC assessment-guided strategy for statin therapy appears to be cost-effective compared with initiating statin therapy in all African American individuals at intermediate risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and may provide greater quality-adjusted life expectancy at a lower cost than a non-CAC assessment-guided strategy when there is a strong patient preference to avoid the need for daily medication. Coronary artery calcium testing may play a role in shared decision-making regarding statin use.

Comparison of the Treatment Implications of American Society of Hypertension and International Society of Hypertension 2013 and Eighth Joint National Committee Guidelines: an analysis of National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Multiple guidelines and statements related to hypertension have recently been published. Much discord has arisen from discrepant treatment and target systolic blood pressure thresholds for individuals aged 60 to 79 years of <150 mm Hg in the guideline published by members assigned to the Eighth Joint National Committee and <140 mm Hg in a statement by the American Society of Hypertension and International Society of Hypertension 2013. We sought to evaluate the public health implications of these differences using data from the 2005 to 2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) cycles. NHANES is an ongoing survey designed to allow characterization of the US population and subpopulations. We found that only .2.4% (95% confidence interval, 1.5.3.2%) of adults aged 60 to 79 years had indications for antihypertensive treatment under the more stringent American Society of Hypertension and International Society of Hypertension 2013 guideline but not under Eighth Joint National Committee. About 65.7% (95% confidence interval, 62.4.69.0%) of adults aged 60 to 79 years had indications for treatment under both guidelines. Furthermore, those with indications for treatment under American Society of Hypertension and International Society of Hypertension 2013 but not under Eighth Joint National Committee generally had higher systolic blood pressure and less favorable lipid profiles compared with those with indications for treatment under both guidelines. Importantly, a larger group, comprising 21.0% (95% confidence interval, 18.7.23.2%) of adults aged 60 to 79 years, had either untreated or inadequately treated hypertension and represents an important group for continued efforts.