Limited data suggest that systematic risk assessment for CVD has no statistically significant effects on clinical endpoints .
There is limited evidence to suggest that CVD systematic risk assessment may have some favourable effects on cardiovascular risk factors .
BACKGROUND Screening programmes can potentially identify people at high cardiovascular risk and reduce cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) morbidity and mortality .
However , there is currently not enough evidence showing clear clinical or economic benefits of systematic screening-like programmes over the widely practised opportunistic risk assessment of CVD in primary care setting s. OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness , costs and adverse effects of systematic risk assessment compared to opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of CVD .
Costs and cost effectiveness of cardiovascular screening and intervention: the British family heart study
Abstract Objective : To measure costs and cost effectiveness of the British family heart study cardiovascular screening and intervention programme . Design : Cost effectiveness analysis of r and omised controlled trial . Clinical and re source use data taken from trial and unit cost data from external estimates . Setting : 13 general practice s across Britain . Subjects : 4185 men aged 40 - 59 and their 2827 partners . Intervention : Nurse led programme using a family centred approach , with follow up according to degree of risk . Main outcome measures : Cost of the programme itself ; overall short term cost to NHS ; cost per 1 % reduction in coronary risk at one year . Results : Estimated cost of putting the programme into practice for one year was £ 63 per person ( 95 % confidence interval £ 60 to £ 65 ) . The overall short term cost to the health service was £ 77 per man ( £ 29 to £ 124 ) but only £ 13 per woman ( -£48 to £ 74 ) , owing to differences in utilisation of other health service re sources . The cost per 1 % reduction in risk was £ 5.08 per man ( £ 5.92 including broader health service costs ) and £ 5.78 per woman ( £ 1.28 taking into account wider health service savings ) . Conclusions : The direct cost of the programme to a four partner practice of 7500 patients would be approximately £ 58 000 . Annually , £ 8300 would currently be paid to a practice of this size working to the maximum target on the health promotion b and s , plus any additional reimbursement of practice staff salaries for which the practice qualified . The broader short term costs to the NHS may augment these costs for men but offset them considerably for women . Key messages Patient specific data from the British family heart study are used in this detailed cost effectiveness analysis The costs of the programme to general practitioners was estimated with reasonable precision : an average four partner practice of 7500 patients will require 1.75 nurse years to implement this programme , costing £ 58 000 The direct costs of the programme may not be fully reimbursed under the current health promotion b and ing scheme The broader impact on drug costs and use of other health care re sources is uncertain , and larger trials will be needed to estimate these important
Limited data suggest that systematic risk assessment for CVD has no statistically significant effects on clinical endpoints .
There is limited evidence to suggest that CVD systematic risk assessment may have some favourable effects on cardiovascular risk factors .
BACKGROUND Screening programmes can potentially identify people at high cardiovascular risk and reduce cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) morbidity and mortality .
However , there is currently not enough evidence showing clear clinical or economic benefits of systematic screening-like programmes over the widely practised opportunistic risk assessment of CVD in primary care setting s. OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness , costs and adverse effects of systematic risk assessment compared to opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of CVD .