Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 2, 2026

Signal Acquisition, Score Interpretation, and Economics of a Non-Invasive Point-of-Care Test for Coronary Artery Disease
Published on: August 9, 2024
Relative cost effectiveness of the SPHERE intervention in selected patient subgroups with existing coronary heart
Paddy Gillespie1, Eamon O'Shea, Andrew W Murphy
1School of Business and Economics, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland. paddy.gillespie@nuigalway.ie
Insights
This study found that a secondary prevention intervention for coronary heart disease patients likely saves costs and improves quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Targeting specific patient subgroups was not statistically supported, but may be considered if budget constraints exist.
Area of Science:
- Health Economics
- Cardiovascular Disease Management
- Public Health Policy
Background:
- Coronary heart disease (CHD) patient populations exhibit heterogeneity, potentially influencing treatment cost-effectiveness.
- Budget constraints necessitate evaluating targeted resource allocation for secondary prevention interventions in specific CHD subgroups.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the cost-effectiveness of a secondary prevention intervention for a combined CHD patient population versus three subgroups: elderly (>70 years), those with complex diagnoses (MI, CABG, PTCA), and diabetic patients.
- To inform resource allocation decisions under budget constraints by analyzing intervention cost-effectiveness across different CHD patient profiles.
Main Methods:
- A probabilistic model was employed to integrate within-trial and beyond-trial impacts of the SPHERE Intervention against usual care.
- Lifetime healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated for both strategies.
- Cost-effectiveness was analyzed for the general population and three specific subgroups: patients over 70, patients with diagnoses beyond angina, and patients with diabetes.
Main Results:
- The SPHERE Intervention demonstrated mean cost savings and QALY gains compared to the control group across all analyses, though statistical significance was not achieved.
- The probability of the intervention being cost-effective exceeded 85% across various cost-effectiveness thresholds for all patient groups.
- No strong statistical evidence supported targeting specific subgroups over the general population.
Conclusions:
- The secondary prevention intervention is likely cost-effective for the general CHD population and specific subgroups.
- While targeting specific subgroups lacks compelling statistical support, a tentative priority ranking is possible for resource allocation under affordability constraints.
- Further consideration of subgroup analysis may be warranted if budget limitations are a primary concern in CHD secondary prevention.
Abstract:
Heterogeneity exists within the patient population with coronary heart disease and the cost effectiveness of treatment may vary across subgroups within the overall population. This study compares the cost effectiveness of a secondary prevention intervention for a combined patient population relative to three selected subgroups: patients aged over 70 years; patients with a diagnosis other than angina only (that is, patients with a history of myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft and/or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty); and patients with diabetes. The results for the general population have been published elsewhere, but ongoing budget constraints require consideration of the appropriateness of targeting resources to patient subgroups. We adopt a probabilistic model to combine within trial and beyond trial impacts of treatment to estimate the lifetime health care costs and quality-adjusted life years of two primary care-based secondary prevention strategies: SPHERE Intervention--tailored practice and patient care plans and Control--standardised usual care. In all cases, the intervention was associated with mean cost savings and mean QALYs gains, when compared to the control, though statistical significance was never achieved. However, the probability of the intervention being cost effective was higher than 85% in all analyses across a range of potential cost-effectiveness threshold values. There is no compelling statistical evidence to support the targeting of specific subgroups across the general population. However, if affordability constraints are binding, the results do allow a tentative ranking of priorities based on the probabilistic subgroup analysis.
Related Concept Videos
Coronary Artery Disease IV: Preventive Measures
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
Rheumatic Heart Disease III: Medical Management
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
Coronary Artery Disease I: Introduction
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care