Abstract
Objective. To evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of two types of advice (usual and intensive) to lower cardiovascular risk, with or without pharmacological medication aimed at lowering cholesterol levels.
Design. Prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study of 18 months' duration.
Setting. Thirty‐two primary health care centres in Sweden.
Subjects. A total of 384 males, aged 30–59 years, with at least one cardiovascular risk factor in addition to moderate primary hyperlipidaemia; of these, 355 completed the 18‐month follow‐up.
Interventions. Intensive advice consisted of group sessions led by a health care professional; the usual level of advice was given at follow‐up visits. The pharmacological intervention consisted of pravastatin. The goal was to achieve a 15% reduction in cholesterol.
Main outcome measures. Cost per life‐year gained based on the change in serum cholesterol and the net intervention cost of the four treatment options.
Results. The usual level of advice and intensive advice in combination with pharmacological treatment achieved no incremental effects and were not considered in the cost‐effectiveness analysis. The cost per life‐year gained of pharmacological treatment compared with intensive advice decreased. The cost per life‐year gained of pharmacological treatment compared with no treatment was about $61 000, if no adverse consequences on noncardiovascular mortality were assumed.
Conclusions. According to the results of the CELL trial, intensive advice is not a cost‐effective strategy compared with lipid‐lowering drug treatment. However, it is also doubtful whether drug treatment as primary prevention is cost‐effective compared with no treatment in the studied patient population.