Search

Objectives: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of global morbidity and mortality, yet no comprehensive evaluation of its global economic costs exists. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to examine the costs of CHD treatment by region and CHD subtypes, examine whether there are cost difference by sex, and examine costing methodologies., Design: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomised studies., Data Sources: We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, EconLit and Google Scholar from 1 January 2000 to February 2023., Eligibility Criteria for Selecting Studies: We included observational studies reporting economic costs of CHD treatment and outcomes for adults that were published in English., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction and quality assessment were independently undertaken by two reviewers. Costs were converted to percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of corresponding country. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis using StataSE V.18 to calculate the pooled percentage. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic. Meta-regression and bias assessment were performed., Results: Out of 20 100 records identified, 37 studies (including 2 564 189 individuals) from 22 countries were included in the qualitative synthesis and the quantitative meta-analysis. In most countries, the annual cost of CHD exceeds many times the total health expenditure per capita. The pooled direct annual cost of CHD per patient varied from 4.9% to 137.8% of GDP per capita (Int$ purchasing power parity), with pooled percentage of 21.7% (95% CI 15.3, 28.1) for those with CHD. Slight difference in the annual pooled cost of CHD was observed, with a 2% of GDP per capita higher cost in men (95% CI 0.8, 3.2). Most studies applied a top-down costing approach (n=21)., Conclusions: The review illustrates the expense associated with CHD, which is varied by region and CHD subtypes. The observed cost difference by sex warrants further exploration of sex-specific factors influencing cost disparities. Exploring advanced costing methods such as time-driven activity-based costing can optimise resource allocation and identify opportunities to reduce unnecessary costs and cost disparities., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42023412044., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ Group.)

Background: This population-based cross-stional and panel study investigated disparities in the management of coronary heart disease (CHD) by level of socioeconomic status., Methods: CHD patients (aged ≥18 years), treated in 438 general practices in Australia, with ≥3 recent encounters with their general practitioners, with last encounter being during 2016-2018, were included. Secondary prevention prescriptions and number of treatment targets achieved were each modelled using a Poisson regression adjusting for demographics, socioeconomic indicators, remoteness of patient's residence, comorbidities, lifetime follow-up, number of patient-general practitioner encounters and cluster effect within the general practices. The latter model was constructed using the Generalised Estimating Equations approach. Sensitivity analysis was run by comorbidity., Results: Of 137,408 patients (47% women), approximately 48% were prescribed ≥3 secondary prevention medications. However, only 44% were screened for CHD-associated risk factors. Of the latter, 45% achieved ≥5 treatment targets. Compared with patients from the highest socioeconomic status fifth, those from the lowest socioeconomic status fifth were 8% more likely to be prescribed more medications for secondary prevention (incidence rate ratio (95% confidence interval): 1.08 (1.04-1.12)) but 4% less likely to achieve treatment targets (incidence rate ratio: 0.96 (0.95-0.98)). These disparities were also observed when stratified by comorbidities., Conclusion: Despite being more likely to be prescribed medications for secondary prevention, those who are most socioeconomically disadvantaged are less likely to achieve treatment targets. It remains to be determined whether barriers such as low adherence to treatment, failure to fill prescriptions, low income, low level of education or other barriers may explain these findings., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: To determine whether sex differences exist in the management of patients with a history of coronary heart disease (CHD) in primary care., Methods: General practice records of patients aged ≥18 years with a history of CHD in a large general practice dataset in Australia, MedicineInsight, were analysed. Sex-specific, age-standardised proportions of patients prescribed with recommended medications; assessed for cardiovascular risk factors; and achieved treatment targets according to the General Practice Management Plan were reported., Results: Records of 130 926 patients (47% women) from 438 sites were available from 2014 to 2018. Women were less likely to be prescribed with recommended medications (prescribed ≥3 medications: women 44%, men 61%; p<0.001). Younger patients, especially women aged <45 years, were substantially underprescribed (aged <45 years prescribed ≥3 medications: women 2%, men 8%; p<0.001). Lower proportions of women were assessed for cardiovascular risk factors (blood test for lipids: women 70%-76%, men 77%-81%; p<0.001). Body size was not commonly assessed (body mass index: women 59%, men 62%; p<0.001; waist: women 23%, men 25%; p<0.001). Higher proportions of women than men achieved targets for most risk factors (achieved ≥4 targets in patients assessed for all risk factors: women 82%, men 76%)., Conclusion: Gaps in preventative management including prescription of indicated medications and risk factor monitoring have been reported from the late 1990s and this large-scale general practice data analysis indicate they still persist. Moreover, the gap is larger in women compared to men. We need new ways to address these gaps and the sex inequity., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RH and CMYL have received financial support from the National Heart Foundation of Australia for the submitted work; MW has received personal fees from Amgen and Kirin outside the submitted work; CKC has received grants from National Health and Medical Research Council and National Heart Foundation outside the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)