Scaling hypertension treatment in 24 low-income and middle-income countries: economic evaluation of treatment decisions at three blood pressure cut-points.

OBJECTIVE

Estimate the incremental costs and benefits of scaling up hypertension care in adults in 24 select countries, using three different systolic blood pressure (SBP) treatment cut-off points-≥140, ≥150 and ≥160 mm Hg.

INTERVENTION: Strengthening the hypertension care cascade compared with status quo levels, with pharmacological treatment administered at different cut-points depending on the scenario.

TARGET POPULATION: Adults aged 30+ in 24 low-income and middle-income countries spanning all world regions.

PERSPECTIVE: Societal.

TIME HORIZON: 30 years.

DISCOUNT RATE: 4%.

COSTING YEAR: 2020 USD.

STUDY

DESIGN

DATA SOURCES: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation's Epi Visualisations database-country-specific cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence, prevalence and death rates. Mean SBP and prevalence-National surveys and NCD-RisC. Treatment protocols-WHO HEARTS. Treatment impact-academic literature. Costs-national and international databases.

OUTCOME MEASURES: Health outcomes-averted stroke and myocardial infarction events, deaths and disability-adjusted life-years; economic outcomes-averted health expenditures, value of averted mortality and workplace productivity losses.

RESULTS OF ANALYSIS: Across 24 countries, over 30 years, incremental scale-up of hypertension care for adults with SBP≥140 mm Hg led to 2.6 million averted CVD events and 1.2 million averted deaths (7% of expected CVD deaths). 68% of benefits resulted from treating those with very high SBP (≥160 mm Hg). 10 of the 12 highest-income countries projected positive net benefits at one or more treatment cut-points, compared with 3 of the 12 lowest-income countries. Treating hypertension at SBP≥160 mm Hg maximised the net economic benefit in the lowest-income countries.

LIMITATIONS: The model only included a few hypertension-attributable diseases and did not account for comorbid risk factors. Modelled scenarios assumed ambitious progress on strengthening the care cascade.

CONCLUSIONS

In areas where economic considerations might play an outsized role, such as very low-income countries, prioritising treatment to populations with severe hypertension can maximise benefits net of economic costs.