Clinical trials generally provide strong evidence of the efficacy of cardiovascular preventive strategies, but poor evidence of their ‘real-life’ utility, in terms of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
Design and methods
The Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Model is presented, which represents a means of extrapolating the results of clinical trials to a broader, more relevant context. The model is configured as a decision-analysis tree, and underpinned by life-course analysis and Markov processes. Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses are undertaken by Monte Carlo simulation.
Results
The results of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analyses of a hypothetical preventive intervention are presented to demonstrate the outputs of the model. The potential impact and efficiency of the intervention are made obvious.
Conclusions
The Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Model offers a means to translate the results of trials of cardiovascular preventive interventions, in order to inform clinical and public health practice, as well as health policy.
LiewDMcNeilJJPeetersALimSSVosT. Epidemiological modelling (including economic modelling) and its role in preventive drug therapy. Med J Aust2002; 177:364–367.
2.
YusufSReddySOunpuuSAnandS. Global burden of cardiovascular diseases. Part I: general considerations, the epidemiologic transition, risk factors, and impact of urbanization. Circulation2001; 104:2746–2753.
3.
YusufSReddySOunpuuSAnandS. Global burden of cardiovascular diseases. Part II: variations in cardiovascular disease by specific ethnic groups and geographic regions and prevention strategies. Circulation2001; 104:2855–2864.
4.
McNeilJJPeetersALiewDLimSVosT. A model for predicting the future incidence of coronary heart disease within percentiles of coronary heart disease risk. J Cardiovasc Risk2001; 8:31–37.
5.
LilfordRJPaukerSGBraunholtzDAChardJ. Decision analysis and the implementation of research findings. BMJ1998; 317:405–409.
6.
WesleyD. Life table analysis. J Insur Med1998; 30:247–254.
7.
BriggsASculpherM. An introduction to Markov modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics1998; 13:397–409.
8.
WeinsteinMCSiegelJEGoldMRKamletMSRussellLB. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA1996; 276:1253–1258.
9.
BriggsAH. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics2000; 17:479–500.
10.
AndersonKMOdellPMWilsonPWFKannelWB. Cardiovascular disease risk profiles. Am Heart J1990; 121:293–298.
11.
AndersonKMWilsonPWFOdellPMKannelWB. An updated coronary risk profile. AHA Medical/Scientific Statement. Circulation1991; 83:356–362.
12.
OdellPMAndersonKMKannelWB. New models for predicting cardiovascular events. J Clin Epidemiol1994; 47:583–592.
13.
D'AgostinoRBRussellMWHuseDMEllisonRCSilbershatzHWilsonPWHartzSC. Primary and subsequent coronary risk appraisal: new results from The Framingham Study. Am Heart J2000; 139:272–281.
14.
Victorian Department of Human Services Health Data Standards and Systems Unit.VAED Manual, 13th ed. Melbourne: Victorian DHS; 2003. Available at: http://hdss.health.vic.gov.au. Accessed: 12 January 2006.
15.
Australian Bureau of Statistics.2001 Census of Population and Housing. Canberra: ABS; 2001. Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au. Accessed: 12 January 2006.
16.
ThriftAGDeweyHMMacdonellRAMcNeilJJDonnanGA. Stroke incidence on the east coast of Australia: the North East Melbourne Stroke Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Stroke2000; 31:2087–2092.
17.
McElduffPDobsonAJamrozikKHobbsM. The WHO MONICA Study, Australia, 1984–93: a summary of the Newcastle and Perth MONICA Projects. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2000.
18.
Victorian Department of Human Services, Public Health and Development Division.The Victorian Burden of Disease Study: Mortality. Melbourne: Victorian DHS; 1999. Available at: http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/phd/9903009/index.htm. Accessed: 12 January 2006.
19.
MathersCVosTStevensonC. The burden of disease and injury in Australia. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 1999.
20.
KPMG Health, Education and Community Services Group 2000–01 Cost Weight Study. A report to the Victorian Department of Human Services. Melbourne: Victorian DHS; 2001.
21.
DeweyHMThriftAGMihalopoulosCCarterRMacdonellRAMcNeilJJDonnanGA. Cost of stroke in Australia from a societal perspective: results from the North East Melbourne Stroke Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Stroke2001; 32:2409–2416.
22.
NelsonMRLiewDBertramMVosT. Epidemiological modelling of routine use of low dose aspirin for the primary prevention of coronary heart disease and stroke in those aged ≤ 70. BMJ2005; 330:1306. E-pub 20 May 2005.
23.
WeinsteinMCCoxsonPGWilliamsLWPassTMStasonWBGoldmanL. Forecasting coronary heart disease incidence, mortality, and cost: the Coronary Heart Disease Policy Model. Am J Public Health1987; 77:1417–1426.
24.
JohannessonMHedbrantJJonssonB. A computer simulation model for cost-effectiveness analysis of cardiovascular disease prevention. Med Inform1991; 16:355–362.
25.
MatcharDBSamsaGPMatthewsJRAncukiewiczMParmigianiGHasselbladV. The Stroke Prevention Policy Model: linking evidence and clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med1997; 127:704–711.
26.
CucheratMBoisselJP. A mathematical model for the determination of the optimum value of the treatment threshold for a continuous risk factor. Eur J Epidemiol1998; 14:23–29.
27.
LindholmLHallgrenCGBomanKMarkgrenKWeinehallLOgrenJE. Cost-effectiveness analysis with defined budget: how to distribute resources for the prevention of cardiovascular disease?Health Policy1999; 48:155–170.
28.
MuiSL. Projecting coronary heart disease incidence and cost in Australia: results from the incidence module of the Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model. Aust N Z J Public Health1999; 23:11–19.
29.
BabadHSandersonCNaidooBWhiteIWangD. The development of a simulation model of primary prevention strategies for coronary heart disease. Health Care Manag Sci2002; 5:269–274.
30.
CooperKDaviesRRoderickPChaseDRafteryJ. The development of a simulation model of the treatment of coronary heart disease. Health Care Manag Sci2002; 5:259–267.
