Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cost-effectiveness of new tests to diagnose and treat coronary heart disease

  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Opinion statement

This article provides a review of the methods applied in defining cost-effectiveness as well as a review of the limited evidence base for defining incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of cardiovascular imaging when compared with an office-based risk assessment using the Framingham risk score. To date, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests that screening may be cost-effective in patients with an intermediate Framingham risk score. However, much of this evidence is derived from decision models or simulations that may not adequately represent the use of imaging evidence as it may be derived from “real world” or randomized trial data. Thus, we await additional evidence from large cohort studies or well-controlled clinical trials to define optimal economic efficiency strategies that may include the use of cardiovascular imaging in the screening of patients at risk for coronary heart disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Mark DB, Shaw LJ, Lauer MS, et al.: 34th Bethesda Conference: Task Force #5—Is atherosclerotic imaging cost effective? J Am Coll Cardiol 2003, 41:1906–1917. Provides a delineation of the cost-effectiveness methodologies as well as a synopsis of the available cost-effectiveness literature for cardiovascular screening.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mowatt G, Bower DJ, Brebner JA, et al.: When and how to assess fast-changing technologies: a comparative study of medical applications of four generic technologies. Health Technol Assess 1997, 1:1–149.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Taira DA, Seto TB, Siegrist R, et al.: Comparison of analytic approaches for the economic evaluation of new technologies alongside multicenter clinical trials. Am Heart J 2003, 145:452–458.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pear R: Propelled by Drug and Hospital Costs, Health Spending Surged in 2000. In The New York Times. January 8, 2002:A14.

  5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: HUS 2004 Chartbook. Accessible at http://www.cdc.gov. Accessed May 12, 2005.

  6. Levin DC, Parker L, Intenzo CM, Sunshine JH: Recent rapid increase in utilization of radionudide myocardial perfusion imaging and related procedures: 1996–1998 practice patterns. Radiology 2002, 222:144–148.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. American Heart Association: Statistics. Accessible at http://www.am ericanheart.org/statistics/economic.html. Accessed May 12, 2005.

  8. American College of Cardiology: Impact Chart Downloading Instructions. Accessible at http://www.acc.org/ advocacy/advoc_issues/impactchart.htm. Accessed May 12, 2005.

  9. Schieber SJ, ed: From Baby Boom to Elder Boom: Providing Health Care for an Aging Population. Washington, DC: Watson Wyatt Worldwide; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  10. National Health Service - National Institute of Clinical Excellence: Appraisal Consultation Document: Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy for the diagnosis and management of CAD. Accessible at http:// www.nice.org.uk/article.asp?a=80521. Accessed August 15, 2003.

  11. Mark DB, Hlatky MA: Medical economics and the assessment of value in cardiovascular medicine: Part I. Circulation 2002, 106:516–520.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Shaw LJ, Miller DD: Defining quality health care with outcomes assessment while achieving economic value. Top Health Inf Manage 1999, 20:44–54.

    Google Scholar 

  13. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Accessible at http://www.nice.org.uk. Accessed on August 15, 2003.

  14. Oortwijm W, Banta HD, Cranovsky R: Introduction: mass screening, health technology assessment, and health policy in some European countries. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001, 17:269–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rouse A Adab P: Is population coronary heart disease risk screening justified? Br J Gen Pract 2001, 51:834–837.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Butler JR: Economic evaluations of screening programs: a review of methods and results. Clin Chim Acta 2002, 315:31–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Sculpher M, Drummond M, Buxton M: The iterative use of economic evaluation as part of the process of health technology assessment. J Health Sen Res Policy 1997, 2:26–30.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Sheldon TA: Problems of using modelling in the economic evaluation of health care. Health Econ 1996, 5:1–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Buxton MJ, Drummond MF, Van Hout BA et al.: Modeling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ 1997, 6:217–227.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bell R, Petticrew M, Luengo S, Sheldon TA: Screening for ovarian cancer: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 1998, 2:1–84.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Petticrew MP, Sowden AJ, Lister-Sharp D, Wright K: False-negative results in screening programmes: systematic review of impact and implications. Health Technol Assess 2000, 4:1–60.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO: Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ 1996, 313:275–283.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Mansley EC, McKenna MT: Importance of perspective in economic analyses of cancer screening decisions. Lancet 2001, 358:1169–1173.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Smith DH, Hugh Gravelle H: The practice of discounting in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001, 17:236–243.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Sheldon TA: Discounting in health care decisionmaking: time for a change? J Public Health Med 1992, 14:250–256.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Penneil DJ, Sechtem UP, Higgins CB, et al.: Clinical indications for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR): consensus panel report. Eur Heart J 2004, 25:1940–1965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Screening for Coronary Heart Disease. Accessible at http:// www.ahcpr.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspsacad.htm. Accessed September 28, 2004.

  28. Palmer AJ, Roze S, Valentine WJ, et al.: The CORE Diabetes model: Projecting long-term clinical outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness of interventions in diabetes mellitus (type 1 and 2) to support clinical and reimbursement decision-making. Curr Med Res Opin 2004, 20(suppl 1):S5-S26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Frybeck DG, Lawrence WF, Martin PA et al.: The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making 1993, 13:89–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. O’Rourke RA Brundage BH, Froelicher VF, et al.: American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Expert Consensus document on electron beam computed tomography for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Circulation 2000, 102:126–140.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Berry E, Kelly S, Hutton J, et al.: A systematic literature review of spiral and electron beam computed tomography: with particular reference to clinical applications in hepatic lesions, pulmonary embolus and coronary artery disease. Health Technol Assess 1999, 3:1–121.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hernigou A Perrin JP, Grataloup C, et al.: Cost comparison of electron beam tomography with conventional computed tomography scanning. Acad Radiol 1996, 3(suppl 1):S145-S146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. O’Malley PG, Greenberg BA Taylor AJ: Cost-effectiveness of using electron beam computed tomography to identify patients at risk for clinical coronary artery disease. Am Heart J 2004, 148:106–113. Presents a cost-effective decision analytic model evaluating the role of coronary calcium screening compared with the office-based Framingham risk assessment.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Shaw LJ, Raggi P, Berman DS, Callister TQ: Cost effectiveness of screening for cardiovascular disease with measures of coronary calcium. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 2003, 46:171–184.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Anderson RN: US Decennial Life Tables for 1989–1991, vol 1 no 4: US Life Tables Eliminating Certain Causes of Death. Hyattsville, MD: NCHS; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Corrado D, Pelliccia A, Bjornstad HH, et al.: Cardiovascular pre-participation screening of young competitive athletes for prevention of sudden death: proposal for a common European protocol. Eur Heart J 2005, 26:516–524.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Buskens E, Nederkoorn PH, Buijs-Van Der Woude T, et al.: Imaging of the carotid arteries in symptomatic patients: cost effectiveness of diagnostic strategies. Radiology 2004, 233:101–112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Mowatt G, Vale L, Brazzelli M, et al.: Systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and economic evaluation of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy for the diagnosis and management of angina and myocardial infarction. Health Technol Assess 2004, 8:iii-iv, 1–207.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Nalini S, Armstrong DG, Lipsky BA: Preventing foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. JAMA 2005, 293:217–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Califf RM, Armstrong PW, Carver JR, et al.: 27th Bethesda Conference: matching the intensity of risk factor management with the hazard for coronary disease events. Task Force 5. Stratification of patients into high, medium and low risk subgroups for purposes of risk factor management. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996, 27:1007–1019.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Raggi P, Callister TQ, Cooil B, et al.: Evaluation of chest pain in patients with low to intermediate pretest probability of coronary artery disease by electron beam computed tomography. Am J Cardiol 2000, 85:386–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Herman WH, Hoerger TJ, Brandie M, et al.: The cost-effectiveness of lifestyle modification or metformin in preventing type 2 diabetes in adults with impaired glucose tolerance. Ann Intern Med 2005, 142:323–332.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Rumberger JA, Behrenbeck T, Breen JF, Sheedy PF: Coronary calcification by electron beam computed tomography and obstructive coronary artery disease: a model for costs and effectiveness of diagnosis as compared with conventional cardiac testing methods. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999, 33:453–462.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Derdeyn CP, Powers WJ: Cost effectiveness of screening for asymptomatic carotid atherosclerotic disease. Stroke 1996, 27:1944–1950.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Mansley EC, McKenna MT: Importance of perspective in economic analyses of cancer screening decision. Lancet 2001, 358:1169–1173.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Sonnenberg A, Delco F: Cost-effectiveness of a single colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer. Arch Intern Med 2002, 162:163–168.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Johnstone PA, Moore EM, Carrillo R, Goepfert CJ: Yield of mammography in selected patients age < or = 30 years. Cancer 2001, 91:1075–1078.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Weinstein MC: The costs of prevention. J Gen Intern Med 1990, 5(suppl 5):S89-S92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Hunink MG, Kuntz KM, Fleischmann KE, Brady TJ: Noninvasive imaging for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: focusing the development of new diagnostic technology. Ann Intern Med 1999, 131:673–680.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Polak JF: Role of duplex US as a screening test for carotid atherosclerotic disease: benefit without cost. Radiology 1995, 197:581–582.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Hoerger TJ, Harris R, Hicks KA, et al.: Screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 2004, 140:689–699.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Fowler-Brown A, Pignone M, Pletcher M, et al.: Exercise tolerance testing to screen for coronary heart disease: a systematic review for the technical support for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2004, 140:W9-W24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Davies L, Drummond M, Papanikolaou P: Prioritizing investments in health technology assessment. Can we assess potential value for money? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000, 16:73–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Goldman L, Philips KA, Coxson P, et al.: The effects of risk factor reductions between 1981 and 1990 on coronary heart disease incidence, prevalence, mortality, and cost. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001, 38:1018–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Shaw LJ, Redberg R: From clinical trials to public health policy: the path from imaging to screening. Am J Cardiol 2001, 88:62E-65E.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 8700 Beverly Boulevard, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Room 125, Taper Building, 90048, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Leslee J. Shaw PhD

Authors
  1. Leslee J. Shaw PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Allen J. Taylor MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patrick G. O’Malley MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shaw, L.J., Taylor, A.J. & O’Malley, P.G. Cost-effectiveness of new tests to diagnose and treat coronary heart disease. Curr Treat Options Cardio Med 7, 273–286 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-005-0038-7

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-005-0038-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation