The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 429–443 | Cite as

Relative cost effectiveness of the SPHERE intervention in selected patient subgroups with existing coronary heart disease

  • Paddy Gillespie
  • Eamon O’Shea
  • Andrew W. Murphy
  • Susan M. Smith
  • Mary C. Byrne
  • Molly Byrne
  • Margaret E. Cupples
  • for the SPHERE study team
Original Paper

Abstract

Heterogeneity exists within the patient population with coronary heart disease and the cost effectiveness of treatment may vary across subgroups within the overall population. This study compares the cost effectiveness of a secondary prevention intervention for a combined patient population relative to three selected subgroups: patients aged over 70 years; patients with a diagnosis other than angina only (that is, patients with a history of myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft and/or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty); and patients with diabetes. The results for the general population have been published elsewhere, but ongoing budget constraints require consideration of the appropriateness of targeting resources to patient subgroups. We adopt a probabilistic model to combine within trial and beyond trial impacts of treatment to estimate the lifetime health care costs and quality-adjusted life years of two primary care-based secondary prevention strategies: SPHEREIntervention—tailored practice and patient care plans and Control—standardised usual care. In all cases, the intervention was associated with mean cost savings and mean QALYs gains, when compared to the control, though statistical significance was never achieved. However, the probability of the intervention being cost effective was higher than 85% in all analyses across a range of potential cost-effectiveness threshold values. There is no compelling statistical evidence to support the targeting of specific subgroups across the general population. However, if affordability constraints are binding, the results do allow a tentative ranking of priorities based on the probabilistic subgroup analysis.

Keywords

Coronary heart disease Secondary prevention General practice Cost effectiveness analysis: subgroup analysis 

JEL Classification

I11 

References

  1. 1.
    Clark, A.M., Hartling, L., Vandermeer, B., McAlister, F.A.: Meta-analysis: secondary prevention programs for patients with coronary artery disease. Ann. Intern. Med. 143(9), 659–672 (2005)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Drummond, M.F., Sculpher, M.J., Torrance, G.W., O’Brien, J., Stoddart, G.L.: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sun, X., Faunce, T.: Decision-analytical modelling in health-care economic evaluations. Eur. J. Health Econ. 9, 313–323 (2008)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Taylor, D.C.A., Pandya, A., Thompson, D., Chu, P., Graff, J., Shepherd, J., Wenger, N., Greten, H., Carmena, R., Drummond, M.F., Weinstein, M.C.: Cost-effectiveness of intensive atorvastatin therapy in secondary cardiovascular prevention in the United Kingdom, Spain, and Germany, based on the treating to new targets study. Eur. J. Health Econ. 10, 255–265 (2009)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gillespie, P., O’Shea, E., Murphy, A.W., Smith, S.M., Byrne, M.C., Byrne, M., Cupples, M.E.: The cost effectiveness of the SPHERE intervention for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care. 26(3), 263–271 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Murphy, A.W., Cupples, M.E., Smith, S., Byrne, M., Byrne, M.C., Newell, J.: Secondary prevention of heart disease in general practice: a cluster randomised controlled trial of tailored practice and patient care plans. Br. Med. J. 339, b4220 (2009). doi:10.1136/bmj.b4220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Murphy, A.W., Cupples, M.E., Smith, S., Byrne, M., Leathem, C., Byrne, M.C.: The SPHERE Study. Secondary prevention of heart disease in general practice: protocol of a randomised controlled trial of tailored practice and patient care plans with parallel qualitative, economic and policy analyses. [ISRCTN24081411]. Curr. Control Trials Cardiovasc. Med. 6, 11 (2005)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fenwick, E., Byford, S.: A guide to cost effectiveness acceptability curves. Br. J. Psychiatr. 187, 106–108 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D’Agostino, R.B., Russell, M., Huse, D.M., Ellison, R.C., Silbershatz, H., Wilson, P.W., Hartz, S.C.: Primary and subsequent coronary risk appraisal: new results from The Framingham Study. Am. Heart J. 139, 272–281 (2000)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barry, M., Tilson, L.: Recent developments in pricing and reimbursement of medicines in Ireland. Expert Rev. Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 7, 605–611 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, Apr 2004. www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=201974 (reference 0515)
  12. 12.
    Ware, J.E., Kosinski, M., Keller, S.D.: A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med. Care 34(3), 220–233 (1996)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brazier, J.E., Roberts, J.: Estimating a preference-based index from the SF-12. Med. Care 42(9), 851–859 (2004)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Campbell, M.K., Elbourne, D.R., Altman, D.G.: CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ 328, 702–708 (2004)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Central Statistics Office: Dublin (www.cso.ie)
  16. 16.
    Department of Health and Children: The National Heartwatch Programme: Clinical Report—March 2003 to December 2005. Dublin. (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Robinson, M., Palmer, S., Sculpher, M., Philips, Z., Ginnelly, L., Bowens, A., Golder, S., Alfakih, K., Bakhai, A., Packham, C., Cooper, N., Abrams, K., Eastwood, A., Pearman, A., Flather, M., Gray, D., Hall, A.: Cost effectiveness of alternative strategies for the initial medical management of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome: systematic review and decision-analytical modelling. Health Technol. Assess. 9(27), 1–172 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hardin, J.W., Hilbe, J.M.: Generalised estimating equations. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, London (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Glick, H.A., Doshi, J.A., Sonnad, S.S., Polsky, D.: Economic evaluation in clinical trials. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thompson, S.G., Nixon, R.M., Grieve, R.: Addressing the issues that arise in analysing multicentre cost data with application to a multinational study. J Health Econ. 25, 1015–1028 (2006)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Netten, A., Curtis, J.: Unit costs of health and social care. Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, Canterbury (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Central Bank of Ireland: Dublin (www.centralbank.ie)
  23. 23.
    Manca, A., Hawkins, N., Sculpher, M.: Estimating mean QALYs in trial based cost effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ. 14, 487–496 (2005)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lacey, E.A., Walters, S.J.: Continuing inequality: gender and social class influences on self perceived health after a heart attack. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 57, 622–627 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Davies, A., Hutton, J., o’Donnell, J., Kingslake, S.: Cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, simvastatin, pravastatin and fluvastatin for the primary prevention of CHD in the UK. Br. J. Cardiol. 13, 196–202 (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Briggs, A., Claxton, K., Sculpher, M.: Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Black, W.C.: The cost effectiveness plane: a graphic representation of cost effectiveness. Med. Decis. Making 10, 212–215 (1990)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Johnston, K., Gray, A., Moher, M., Yudkin, P., Wright, L., Mant, D.: Reporting the cost-effectiveness of interventions with nonsignificant effect differences: example from a trial of secondary prevention of heart disease. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 19(3), 476–489 (2003)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Buckley, B.S., Simpson, C.R., McLernon, D.J., Murphy, A.W., Hannaford, P.C.: Five year prognosis in patients with angina identified in primary care: incident cohort study. BMJ 339, b3058 (2009)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Briggs, A.: A Bayesian approach to stochastic cost effectiveness analysis: an illustration and application to blood pressure control in type 2 diabetes. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 17(1), 69–82 (2001)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    O’Neill, C., Normand, C., Cupples, M., McKnight, A.: Cost effectiveness of personal health education in primary care for people with angina in the Greater Belfast area of Northern Ireland. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 50, 538–540 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Raftery, J.P., Yao, G.L., Murchie, P., Campbell, N.C., Ritchie, L.D.: Cost effectiveness of nurse led secondary prevention clinics for coronary heart disease in primary care: follow up of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 330(7493), 707 (2005)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Turner, D.A., Paul, S.K., Stone, M., Juarez-Garcia, A., Squire, I., Khunti, K.: Cost-effectiveness of a disease management programme for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and heart failure in primary care. Heart 94, 1601–1606 (2008)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paddy Gillespie
    • 1
    • 2
  • Eamon O’Shea
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andrew W. Murphy
    • 3
  • Susan M. Smith
    • 4
  • Mary C. Byrne
    • 3
  • Molly Byrne
    • 5
  • Margaret E. Cupples
    • 6
  • for the SPHERE study team
  1. 1.School of Business and EconomicsNational University of IrelandGalwayIreland
  2. 2.Irish Centre for Social GerontologyNational University of IrelandGalwayIreland
  3. 3.Department of General PracticeNational University of IrelandGalwayIreland
  4. 4.Department of General PracticeRoyal College of Surgeons in IrelandDublinIreland
  5. 5.School of PsychologyNational University of IrelandGalwayIreland
  6. 6.Department of General PracticeQueen’s University BelfastBelfastNorthern Ireland, UK

Personalised recommendations