Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 May 18;11(5):e0155699.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155699. eCollection 2016.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Screening for and Managing Identified Hypertension for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Vietnam

Affiliations

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Screening for and Managing Identified Hypertension for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Vietnam

Thi-Phuong-Lan Nguyen et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Objective: To inform development of guidelines for hypertension management in Vietnam, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of different strategies on screening for hypertension in preventing cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Methods: A decision tree was combined with a Markov model to measure incremental cost-effectiveness of different approaches to hypertension screening. Values used as input parameters for the model were taken from different sources. Various screening intervals (one-off, annually, biannually) and starting ages to screen (35, 45 or 55 years) and coverage of treatment were analysed. We ran both a ten-year and a lifetime horizon. Input parameters for the models were extracted from local and regional data. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to evaluate parameter uncertainty. A threshold of three times GDP per capita was applied.

Results: Cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained varied in different screening scenarios. In a ten-year horizon, the cost-effectiveness of screening for hypertension ranged from cost saving to Int$ 758,695 per QALY gained. For screening of men starting at 55 years, all screening scenarios gave a high probability of being cost-effective. For screening of females starting at 55 years, the probability of favourable cost-effectiveness was 90% with one-off screening. In a lifetime horizon, cost per QALY gained was lower than the threshold of Int$ 15,883 in all screening scenarios among males. Similar results were found in females when starting screening at 55 years. Starting screening in females at 45 years had a high probability of being cost-effective if screening biannually was combined with increasing coverage of treatment by 20% or even if sole biannual screening was considered.

Conclusion: From a health economic perspective, integrating screening for hypertension into routine medical examination and related coverage by health insurance could be recommended. Screening for hypertension has a high probability of being cost-effective in preventing CVD. An adequate screening strategy can best be selected based on age, sex and screening interval.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The other authors have no conflict of interest regarding to contribution and content of this manuscript to report.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Decision tree and Markov model for estimating cost-effectiveness of screening for hypertension.
Notes: HBP: high blood pressure; CVD: cardiovascular disease. Patients start in the initial hypertension state. Patients can remain in this state or move to either acute CVD or CVD/non-CVD death. From the acute CVD state, patients can move to stable CVD or CVD/non-CVD death state, or may experience recurrent CVD events. From the stable CVD state, patients may stay in the same health state, or they may have a recurrence of CVD or can move to CVD/non-CVD death.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Cost per QALY by different strategies and age group, lifetime model.
E1: Annual screening, E2: Biannual screening, E2 until 60+ E1: Biannual screening until 60 years old then annual screening until died, E2 until 55+ E1: Biannual screening until 55 years old then annual screening until died, E1&T.20%: Annual screening combined with increasing coverage of treatment by 20%, E2&T.20%: Biannual screening combined with increasing coverage of treatment by 20%.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves of different screening strategies, lifetime horizon model.
E1: Annual screening, E2: Biannual screening, E2 till 60+ E1: Biannual screening until 60 years old then annual screening until died, E2 till 55+ E1: Biannual screening until 55 years old then annual screening until died, E1&T.20%: Annual screening combined with increasing coverage of treatment by 20%, E2&T.20%: Biannual screening combined with increasing coverage of treatment by 20%.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. World Health Organization. (2013). A global brief on hypertension. Available: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/79059/1/WHO_DCO_WHD_2013.2_eng.....
    1. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. (2016) Global Burden of Disease. Available: http://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare/.
    1. Yano Y, Briasoulis A, Bakris GL, Hoshide S, Wang JG, et al. (2014) Effects of antihypertensive treatment in Asian populations: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled studies (CARdiovascular protectioN group in Asia: CARNA). J Am Soc Hypertens 8: 103–116. 10.1016/j.jash.2013.09.002 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Law MR, Morris JK, Wald NJ. (2009) Use of blood pressure lowering drugs in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: meta-analysis of 147 randomised trials in the context of expectations from prospective epidemiological studies. BMJ 338: b1665 10.1136/bmj.b1665 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chow CK, Teo KK, Rangarajan S, Islam S, Gupta R, et al. (2013) Prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in rural and urban communities in high-, middle-, and low-income countries. JAMA 310: 959–968. 10.1001/jama.2013.184182 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types