Biomedical subjects

P Coxson

Publications and source records attributed to P Coxson.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2001

The effect of risk factor reductions between 1981 and 1990 on coronary heart disease incidence, prevalence, mortality and cost.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to estimate the impact and cost-effectiveness of risk factor reductions between 1981 and 1990. BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality rates have declined dramatically, partly as a result of reductions in CHD risk factors. METHODS: We used the CHD Policy Model, a validated computer-simulation model, to estimate the effects of actual investments made to change coronary risk factors between 1981 and 1990, as well as the impact of these changes on the incidence, prevalence, mortality and costs of CHD during this period and projected to 2015. RESULTS: Observed changes in risk factors between 1981 and 1990 resulted in a reduction of CHD deaths by approximately 430,000 and overall deaths by approximately 740,000, with an estimated cost-effectiveness of about $44,000 per year of life saved during this period, based on the estimated actual costs of the interventions used. However, because much of the benefit of risk factor reductions is delayed, the estimated reductions for the 35-year period of 1981 to 2015 were 3.6 million CHD deaths and 1.2 million non-CHD deaths, at a cost of only about $5,400 per year of life saved. CONCLUSIONS: Aggregate efforts to reduce risk factors between 1981 and 1990 have led to substantial reductions in CHD and should be well worth the cost, largely because of population-wide changes in life-style and habits. Some interventions are much better investments than others, and attention to such issues could lead to better use of resources and better outcomes in the future.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Health and economic benefits of increased beta-blocker use following myocardial infarction.

CONTEXT: beta-blockers are underused in patients who have myocardial infarction (MI), despite the proven efficacy of these agents. New evidence indicates that beta-blockers can have benefit in patients with conditions that have been considered relative contraindications. Understanding the consequences of underuse of beta-blockers is important because of the implications for current policy debates over quality-of-care measures and Medicare prescription drug coverage. OBJECTIVE: To examine the potential health and economic impact of increased use of beta-blockers in patients who have had MI. DESIGN AND SETTING: We used the Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) Policy Model, a computer-simulation Markov model of CHD in the US population, to estimate the epidemiological impact and cost-effectiveness of increased beta-blocker use from current to target levels among survivors of MI aged 35 to 84 years. Simulations included 1 cohort of MI survivors in 2000 followed up for 20 years and 20 successive annual cohorts of all first-MI survivors in 2000-2020. Mortality and morbidity from CHD were derived from published meta-analyses and recent studies. This analysis used a societal perspective. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevented MIs, CHD mortality, life-years gained, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained in 2000-2020. RESULTS: Initiating beta-blocker use for all MI survivors except those with absolute contraindications in 2000 and continuing treatment for 20 years would result in 4300 fewer CHD deaths, 3500 MIs prevented, and 45,000 life-years gained compared with current use. The incremental cost per QALY gained would be $4500. If this increase in beta-blocker use were implemented in all first-MI survivors annually over 20 years, beta-blockers would save $18 million and result in 72,000 fewer CHD deaths, 62,000 MIs prevented, and 447,000 life-years gained. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the cost-effectiveness of beta-blocker therapy would always be less than $11,000 per QALY gained, even under unfavorable assumptions, and may even be cost saving. Restricting beta-blockers only to ideal patients (those without absolute or relative contraindications) would reduce the epidemiological impact of beta-blocker therapy by about 60%. CONCLUSIONS: Our simulation indicates that increased use of beta-blockers after MI would lead to impressive gains in health and would be potentially cost saving. JAMA. 2000;284:2748-2754.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗

PubMed2000

Technical appendix

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Journal Article↗

PubMed1999

The relative influence of secondary versus primary prevention using the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel II guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to project the population-wide effect of full implementation of the Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) II guidelines of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP). BACKGROUND: The ATP II has proposed guidelines for cholesterol reduction, but the long-term epidemiologic influence of its components has not been fully examined. METHODS: We used a calibrated, validated simulation of the U.S. population, aged 35 to 84 years to estimate the potential for the NCEP guidelines, under varying assumptions, to reduce coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality and overall mortality from the years 2000 to 2020. RESULTS: Primary prevention would yield only about half of the benefits of secondary prevention despite requiring nearly twice as many person-years of treatment. The projected increase in quality-adjusted years of life per year of treatment for secondary prevention was 3- to 12-fold higher than for primary prevention. To yield population-wide epidemiologic benefits equivalent to NCEP recommendations for secondary prevention, primary prevention would require a nearly sixfold increase in the number of persons treated compared with NCEP recommendations. All benefits of universal success of the NCEP primary prevention "screen and treat" guidelines could be achieved by a 11 mg/dl (8%) population-wide reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels among persons without preexisting coronary heart disease. CONCLUSIONS: The NCEP guidelines for targeted primary prevention can be a useful component of a rational public health strategy, but only as a complement to the more appealing strategies of secondary prevention and "across-the-board" programs to lower all cholesterol levels.

Adult↗