Daily almond consumption in cardiovascular disease prevention via LDL-C change in the U.S. population: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Almond
Cardiovascular disease
Cost-effectiveness analysis
Heart disease
Myocardial infarction
Stroke
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Apr 2020
25 Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
25
06
2019
accepted:
02
04
2020
entrez:
27
4
2020
pubmed:
27
4
2020
medline:
3
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the health claim that 1.5 oz (42.5 g) of nut intake may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. Previous studies have focused on the cost-effectiveness of other foods or dietary factors on primary cardiovascular disease prevention, yet not in almond consumption. This study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of almond consumption in cardiovascular disease primary prevention. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of consuming 42.5 g of almond from the U.S. healthcare sector perspective. A decision model was developed for 42.5 g of almond per day versus no almond consumption and cardiovascular disease in the U.S. Parameters in the model were derived from the literature, which included the probabilities of increasing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, developing acute myocardial infarction and stroke, treating acute myocardial infarction, dying from the disease and surgery, as well as the costs of the disease and procedures in the U.S. population, and the quality-adjusted life years. The cost of almonds was based on the current price in the U.S. market. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for different levels of willingness-to-pay, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, ten-year risk prevention, different costs of procedures and almond prices, and patients with or without cardiovascular disease. The almond strategy had $363 lower cost and 0.02 higher quality-adjusted life years gain compared to the non-almond strategy in the base-case model. The annual net monetary benefit of almond consumption was $1421 higher per person than no almond consumption, when the willingness to pay threshold was set at $50,000 for annual health care expenditure. Almond was more cost-effective than non-almond in cardiovascular disease prevention in all the sensitivity analyses. Consuming 42.5 g of almonds per day is a cost-effective approach to prevent cardiovascular disease in the short term and potentially in the long term.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the health claim that 1.5 oz (42.5 g) of nut intake may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. Previous studies have focused on the cost-effectiveness of other foods or dietary factors on primary cardiovascular disease prevention, yet not in almond consumption. This study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of almond consumption in cardiovascular disease primary prevention.
PERSPECTIVE & SETTING
UNASSIGNED
This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of consuming 42.5 g of almond from the U.S. healthcare sector perspective.
METHODS
METHODS
A decision model was developed for 42.5 g of almond per day versus no almond consumption and cardiovascular disease in the U.S.
POPULATION
METHODS
Parameters in the model were derived from the literature, which included the probabilities of increasing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, developing acute myocardial infarction and stroke, treating acute myocardial infarction, dying from the disease and surgery, as well as the costs of the disease and procedures in the U.S. population, and the quality-adjusted life years. The cost of almonds was based on the current price in the U.S. market. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for different levels of willingness-to-pay, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, ten-year risk prevention, different costs of procedures and almond prices, and patients with or without cardiovascular disease.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The almond strategy had $363 lower cost and 0.02 higher quality-adjusted life years gain compared to the non-almond strategy in the base-case model. The annual net monetary benefit of almond consumption was $1421 higher per person than no almond consumption, when the willingness to pay threshold was set at $50,000 for annual health care expenditure. Almond was more cost-effective than non-almond in cardiovascular disease prevention in all the sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Consuming 42.5 g of almonds per day is a cost-effective approach to prevent cardiovascular disease in the short term and potentially in the long term.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32334551
doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-08642-4
pii: 10.1186/s12889-020-08642-4
pmc: PMC7183588
doi:
Substances chimiques
Cholesterol, LDL
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
558Subventions
Organisme : U.S. Department of Agriculture
ID : 58-1950-4-003
Organisme : Almond Board of California
ID : NA
Références
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 04;9(6):e98371
pubmed: 24896266
Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2008;8(6):373-418
pubmed: 19159124
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jan 31;(1):CD004816
pubmed: 23440795
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2013 Nov;67(11):1205-14
pubmed: 24084509
Med Care. 2008 Apr;46(4):349-56
pubmed: 18362813
Arch Intern Med. 2005 Jul 11;165(13):1506-13
pubmed: 16009866
Circulation. 2019 Mar 5;139(10):e56-e528
pubmed: 30700139
Lancet. 2003 Mar 1;361(9359):717-25
pubmed: 12620735
Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(1):3-6
pubmed: 17192114
J Asthma Allergy. 2018 Mar 26;11:41-51
pubmed: 29618933
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012 Feb 1;79(2):198-209
pubmed: 21542113
Clin Ther. 2017 Apr;39(4):804-818.e3
pubmed: 28347513
Circulation. 2013 Feb 19;127(7):820-31
pubmed: 23277307
Nutr J. 2015 Jun 17;14:61
pubmed: 26080804
Circulation. 2003 Dec 9;108(23):2857-63
pubmed: 14610016
Br J Nutr. 2015 Apr;113 Suppl 2:S68-78
pubmed: 26148924
Adv Nutr. 2019 Nov 1;10(6):1076-1088
pubmed: 31243439
N Engl J Med. 2014 Aug 28;371(9):796-7
pubmed: 25162885
Stroke. 2007 Oct;38(10):2718-25
pubmed: 17761915
JAMA. 2011 May 4;305(17):1769-76
pubmed: 21540420
Neurology. 2011 Oct 25;77(17):1590-8
pubmed: 21917781
Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2010 Oct 05;6:905-13
pubmed: 20957133
Mayo Clin Proc. 2019 Apr;94(4):660-669
pubmed: 30737057
JAMA. 2015 Jul 14;314(2):142-50
pubmed: 26172894
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2014 Feb 02;12(1):4
pubmed: 24485221
Neurology. 2015 Feb 3;84(5):472-9
pubmed: 25568296
Ann Intern Med. 1994 Nov 1;121(9):641-7
pubmed: 7944071
PLoS Med. 2019 Mar 19;16(3):e1002761
pubmed: 30889188
Eur J Health Econ. 2018 Sep;19(7):909-922
pubmed: 29110223
Med Decis Making. 2000 Jul-Sep;20(3):332-42
pubmed: 10929856
Neurology. 2007 Feb 20;68(8):556-62
pubmed: 17310025
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008 Apr;8(2):165-78
pubmed: 20528406
Kidney Int. 2004 Nov;66(5):1735-41
pubmed: 15496144
Circulation. 2017 Mar 7;135(10):e146-e603
pubmed: 28122885
Value Health. 2005 Sep-Oct;8(5):521-33
pubmed: 16176491