Comparing impact and cost-effectiveness of primary prevention strategies for lipid-lowering.

BACKGROUND: Lipid-lowering therapy is costly but effective at reducing coronary heart disease (CHD) risk. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness and public health impact of Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) guidelines and compare with a range of risk- and age-based alternative strategies. DESIGN: The CHD Policy Model, a Markov-type cost-effectiveness model. DATA SOURCES: National surveys (1999 to 2004), vital statistics (2000), the Framingham Heart Study (1948 to 2000), other published data, and a direct survey of statin costs (2008). TARGET POPULATION: U.S. population age 35 to 85 years. Time Horizon: 2010 to 2040. PERSPECTIVE: Health care system. INTERVENTION: Lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins). OUTCOME MEASURE: Incremental cost-effectiveness. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Full adherence to ATP III primary prevention guidelines would require starting (9.7 million) or intensifying (1.4 million) statin therapy for 11.1 million adults and would prevent 20,000 myocardial infarctions and 10,000 CHD deaths per year at an annual net cost of $3.6 billion ($42,000/QALY) if low-intensity statins cost $2.11 per pill. The ATP III guidelines would be preferred over alternative strategies if society is willing to pay $50,000/QALY and statins cost $1.54 to $2.21 per pill. At higher statin costs, ATP III is not cost-effective; at lower costs, more liberal statin-prescribing strategies would be preferred; and at costs less than $0.10 per pill, treating all persons with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels greater than 3.4 mmol/L (>130 mg/dL) would yield net cost savings. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Results are sensitive to the assumptions that LDL cholesterol becomes less important as a risk factor with increasing age and that little disutility results from taking a pill every day. LIMITATION: Randomized trial evidence for statin effectiveness is not available for all subgroups. CONCLUSION: The ATP III guidelines are relatively cost-effective and would have a large public health impact if implemented fully in the United States. Alternate strategies may be preferred, however, depending on the cost of statins and how much society is willing to pay for better health outcomes. FUNDING: Flight Attendants' Medical Research Institute and the Swanson Family Fund. The Framingham Heart Study and Framingham Offspring Study are conducted and supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Hospital disaster preparedness in Switzerland.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Hospital preparedness is an essential component of any developed health care system. However, there is no national legislation in Switzerland. The objective of this inquiry was to establish the geographic distribution, availability and characteristics of hospital preparedness across Switzerland. METHODS: A questionnaire regarding hospital preparedness in 2006 was addressed to all heads responsible for emergency departments (ED). The survey was initiated in 2007 and finalised in 2012. RESULTS: Of the 138 ED, 122 (88%) returned the survey. Eighty nine EDs (82%) had a disaster plan. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified an insufficient rate of hospitals in which emergency physicians reported a disaster plan. The lack of national or cantonal legislation regulating disaster preparedness may be partially responsible for this.

Diabetes care in Switzerland: good, but perfectible: a population-based cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: While Switzerland invests a lot of money in its healthcare system, little is known about the quality of care delivered. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of care provided to patients with diabetes in the Canton of Vaud, Switzerland. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of 406 non-institutionalized adults with type 1 or 2 diabetes. Patients' characteristics, diabetes and process of care indicators were collected using a self-administered questionnaire. Process indicators (past 12 months) included HbA1C check among HbA1C-aware patients, eye assessment by ophtalmologist, microalbuminuria check, feet examination, lipid test, blood pressure and weight measurement, influenza immunization, physical activity recommendations, and dietary recommendations. Item-by-item (each process of care indicator: percentage of patients having received it), composite (mean percentage of recommended care: sum of received processes of care / sum of possible recommended care), and all-or-none (percentage of patients receiving all specified recommended care) measures were computed. RESULTS: Mean age was 64.4 years; 59% were men. Type 1 and type 2 diabetes were reported by 18.2% and 68.5% of patients, respectively, but diabetes type remained undetermined for almost 20% of patients. Patients were treated with oral anti-diabetic drugs (50%), insulin (23%) or both (27%). Of 219 HbA1C-aware patients, 98% reported ≥ one HbA1C check during the last year. Also, ≥94% reported ≥ one blood pressure measurement, ≥ one weight measurement or lipid test, and 68%, 64% and 56% had feet examination, microalbuminuria check and eye assessment, respectively. Influenza immunization was reported by 62% of the patients.The percentage of patients receiving all processes of care ranged between 14.2%-16.9%, and 46.6%-50.7%, when considering ten and four indicators, respectively. Ambulatory care utilization showed little use of multidisciplinary care, and low levels of participation in diabetes-education classes. CONCLUSIONS: While routine processes-of-care were performed annually in most patients, diabetes-specific risk screenings, influenza immunization, physical activity and dietary recommendations were less often reported; this was also the case for multidisciplinary care and participation in education classes. There is room for diabetes care improvement in Switzerland. These results should help define priorities and further develop country-specific chronic disease management initiatives for diabetes.

Medication incidents in primary care medicine: protocol of a study by the Swiss Federal Sentinel Reporting System.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: Patient safety is a major concern in healthcare systems worldwide. Although most safety research has been conducted in the inpatient setting, evidence indicates that medical errors and adverse events are a threat to patients in the primary care setting as well. Since information about the frequency and outcomes of safety incidents in primary care is required, the goals of this study are to describe the type, frequency, seasonal and regional distribution of medication incidents in primary care in Switzerland and to elucidate possible risk factors for medication incidents. Label="METHODS AND ANALYSIS" ="METHODS"/> <AbstractText STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We will conduct a prospective surveillance study to identify cases of medication incidents among primary care patients in Switzerland over the course of the year 2015. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing drug treatment by 167 general practitioners or paediatricians reporting to the Swiss Federal Sentinel Reporting System. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Any erroneous event, as defined by the physician, related to the medication process and interfering with normal treatment course. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Lack of treatment effect, adverse drug reactions or drug-drug or drug-disease interactions without detectable treatment error. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Medication incidents. RISK FACTORS: Age, gender, polymedication, morbidity, care dependency, hospitalisation. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics to assess type, frequency, seasonal and regional distribution of medication incidents and logistic regression to assess their association with potential risk factors. Estimated sample size: 500 medication incidents. LIMITATIONS: We will take into account under-reporting and selective reporting among others as potential sources of bias or imprecision when interpreting the results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No formal request was necessary because of fully anonymised data. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT0229537.