Systematic review of model-based analyses reporting the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of cardiovascular disease management programs

Background: The reported cost effectiveness of cardiovascular disease management programs (CVD-MPs) is highly variable, potentially leading to different funding decisions. This systematic review evaluates published modeled analyses to compare study methods and quality. Methods: Articles were included if an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) or cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was reported, it is a multi-component intervention designed to manage or prevent a cardiovascular disease condition, and it addressed all domains specified in the American Heart Association Taxonomy for Disease Management. Nine articles (reporting 10 clinical outcomes) were included. Results: Eight cost-utility and two cost-effectiveness analyses targeted hypertension (n=4), coronary heart disease (n=2), coronary heart disease plus stoke (n=1), heart failure (n=2) and hyperlipidemia (n=1). Study perspectives included the healthcare system (n=5), societal and fund holders (n=1), a third party payer (n=3), or was not explicitly stated (n=1). All analyses were modeled based on interventions of one to two years' duration. Time horizon ranged from two years (n=1), 10 years (n=1) and lifetime (n=8). Model structures included Markov model (n=8), 'decision analytic models' (n=1), or was not explicitly stated (n=1). Considerable variation was observed in clinical and economic assumptions and reporting practices. Of all ICERs/ICURs reported, including those of subgroups (n=16), four were above a US$50,000 acceptability threshold, six were below and six were dominant. Conclusion: The majority of CVD-MPs was reported to have favorable economic outcomes, but 25% were at unacceptably high cost for the outcomes. Use of standardized reporting tools should increase transparency and inform what drives the cost-effectiveness of CVD-MPs.