Cost-effectiveness of natriuretic peptide-based screening and collaborative care: a report from the STOP-HF (St Vincent's Screening TO Prevent Heart Failure) study

AIMS: Prevention of cardiovascular disease and heart failure (HF) in a cost-effective manner is a public health goal. This work aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of the St Vincent's Screening TO Prevent Heart Failure (STOP-HF) intervention.

METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a substudy of 1054 participants with cardiovascular risk factors [median age 65.8 years, interquartile range (IQR) 57.8:72.4, with 4.3 years, IQR 3.4:5.2, follow-up]. Annual natriuretic peptide-based screening was performed, with collaborative cardiovascular care between specialist physicians and general practitioners provided to patients with BNP levels >50 pg/mL. Analysis of cost per case prevented and cost-effectiveness per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was performed. The primary clinical endpoint of LV dysfunction (LVD) with or without HF was reduced in intervention patients [odds ratio (OR) 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38-0.94; P = 0.026]. There were 157 deaths and/or emergency hospitalizations for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in the control group vs. 102 in the intervention group (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.49-0.93; P = 0.01). The cost per case of LVD/HF prevented was €9683 (sensitivity range -€843 to €20 210), whereas the cost per MACE prevented was €3471 (sensitivity range -€302 to €7245). Cardiovascular hospitalization savings offset increased outpatient and primary care costs. The cost per QALY gain was €1104 and the intervention has an 88% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of €30 000.

CONCLUSION: Among patients with cardiovascular risk factors, natriuretic peptide-based screening and collaborative care reduced LVD, HF, and MACE, and has a high probability of being cost-effective.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00921960.

Effectiveness of early lens extraction for the treatment of primary angle-closure glaucoma (EAGLE): a randomised controlled trial

Background
Primary angle-closure glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide. In early-stage disease, intraocular pressure is raised without visual loss. Because the crystalline lens has a major mechanistic role, lens extraction might be a useful initial treatment.

Methods
From Jan 8, 2009, to Dec 28, 2011, we enrolled patients from 30 hospital eye services in five countries. Randomisation was done by a web-based application. Patients were assigned to undergo clear-lens extraction or receive standard care with laser peripheral iridotomy and topical medical treatment. Eligible patients were aged 50 years or older, did not have cataracts, and had newly diagnosed primary angle closure with intraocular pressure 30 mm Hg or greater or primary angle-closure glaucoma. The co-primary endpoints were patient-reported health status, intraocular pressure, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained 36 months after treatment. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN44464607.

Findings
Of 419 participants enrolled, 155 had primary angle closure and 263 primary angle-closure glaucoma. 208 were assigned to clear-lens extraction and 211 to standard care, of whom 351 (84%) had complete data on health status and 366 (87%) on intraocular pressure. The mean health status score (0·87 [SD 0·12]), assessed with the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions questionnaire, was 0·052 higher (95% CI 0·015–0·088, p=0·005) and mean intraocular pressure (16·6 [SD 3·5] mm Hg) 1·18 mm Hg lower (95% CI –1·99 to –0·38, p=0·004) after clear-lens extraction than after standard care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £14 284 for initial lens extraction versus standard care. Irreversible loss of vision occurred in one participant who underwent clear-lens extraction and three who received standard care. No patients had serious adverse events.

Interpretation
Clear-lens extraction showed greater efficacy and was more cost-effective than laser peripheral iridotomy, and should be considered as an option for first-line treatment.