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.