Background Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death in the United States, yet a significant proportion of adults at high risk remain undetected by standard screening practices. Polygenic risk score for coronary artery disease (CAD‐PRS) improves precision in determining the 10‐year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease but health benefits and health care costs associated with CAD‐PRS are unknown. We examined the cost‐effectiveness of including CAD‐PRS as a risk‐enhancing factor in the pooled cohort equation (PCE)—the standard of care for determining the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease—versus PCE alone. Methods and Results We applied a Markov model on a cohort of 40‐year‐old individuals with borderline or intermediate 10‐year risk (5% to <20%) for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to identify those in the top quintile of the CAD‐PRS distribution who are at high risk and eligible for statin prevention therapy. Health outcomes examined included coronary artery disease (CAD; ie, myocardial infarction) and ischemic stroke. The model projected medical costs (2019 US$) of screening for CAD, statin prevention therapy, treatment, and monitoring patients living with CAD or ischemic stroke and quality‐adjusted life‐years for PCE+CAD‐PRS versus PCE alone. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were performed to examine uncertainty in parameter inputs. PCE+CAD‐PRS was dominant compared with PCE alone in the 5‐ and 10‐year time horizons. We found that, respectively, PCE+CAD‐PRS had 0.003 and 0.011 higher mean quality‐adjusted life‐years and $40 and $181 lower mean costs per person screened, with 29 and 50 fewer events of CAD and ischemic stroke in a cohort of 10 000 individuals compared with PCE alone. The risk of developing CAD, the effectiveness of statin prevention therapy, and the cost of treating CAD had the largest impact on the cost per quality‐adjusted life‐year gained. However, this cost remained below the $50 000 willingness‐to‐pay threshold except when the annual risk of developing CAD was <0.006 in the 5‐year time horizon. Results from Monte Carlo simulation indicated that PCE+CAD‐PRS would be cost‐effective. with the probability of 94% and 99% at $50 000 willingness‐to‐pay threshold in the 5‐ and 10‐year time horizon, respectively. Conclusions Implementing CAD‐PRS as a risk‐enhancing factor in the PCE to determine the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease reduced the mean cost per individual, improved quality‐adjusted life‐years, and averted future events of CAD and ischemic stroke when compared with PCE alone.

ImportanceThe pooled cohort equation (PCE) is used to determine an individual’s 10-year risk (low, borderline, intermediate, or high) of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) but it fails to identify all individuals at high risk. Those with borderline or intermediate risk require additional risk enhancing factors to guide preventive therapy decisions. Including a polygenic risk score (PRS) for coronary artery disease as a risk enhancing factor improves precision in determining the risk of ASCVD and informs decisions for prevention therapy.ObjectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of integrating PRS for coronary artery disease with the PCE to determine an individual’s 10-year risk for ASCVD compared to the PCE-alone.Design, setting, and populationA Markov model was developed on a hypothetical cohort of 40-year-old individuals in the US with borderline or intermediate PCE 10-year risk for ASCVD who fall in the top quintile of the PRS distribution and are not on preventive therapy (e.g., statins). Model transition probabilities and economic costs came from existing literature with costs reflecting a payer perspective and inflation-adjusted to 2019 US$.InterventionsThe modeled strategies were: (1) the PCE-alone and (2) the PCE with PRS for coronary artery disease as a risk enhancing factor. Analyses were performed at 5 year, 10 year, and lifetime time horizons.Main outcomes and measuresQuality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, acute coronary syndromes and ischemic stroke events prevented, mean costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were measured. One-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess uncertainty in parameter estimates. Future costs and health benefits were discounted at an annual rate of 3%.ResultsCompared to the PCE-alone, PCE+PRS was cost-saving, effective and cost-effective (dominant). A health system would save more than $500, $2,300, and $9,000 per additional high-risk individual identified using PCE+PRS and prevent 27, 47 and 83 acute CAD or ischemic stroke events per 1,000 persons in 5 year, 10 year, and lifetime time horizons, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceImplementing PRS as a risk enhancing factor for CAD among individuals with borderline or intermediate 10-year risk reclassifies individuals as high-risk who would otherwise remain unidentified, prevents future acute CAD and ischemic stroke events, and both saves money and is cost-effective for health systems.Key PointsQuestionIs it cost-effective to use polygenic risk scores (PRS) for coronary artery disease (CAD) among individuals with borderline or intermediate risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) to inform preventive therapy decisions?FindingsWe modeled a hypothetical cohort of individuals with borderline or intermediate risk of ASCVD who fall in the top quintile of the CAD-PRS distribution but not on preventive therapy. Integrating CAD-PRS in the pooled cohort equation improved quality-adjusted life-years, saved money and was cost-effective.MeaningIntegrating PRS as an enhancing factor in the pooled cohort equation risk assessment for ASCVD used in current clinical practice was cost-effective.

BackgroundPolygenic risk score for coronary artery disease (CAD-PRS) improves precision in assessing the risk of cardiovascular diseases and is cost-effective in preventing cardiovascular diseases in a health system and may be cost-effective in other settings and prevention programs such as workplace cardiovascular prevention programs. Workplaces provide a conducitve environment for cardiovascular prevention interventions, but the cost-effectiveness of CAD-PRS in a workplace setting remains unknown. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of integrating CAD-PRS in a workplace cardiovascular disease prevention program compared to the standard cardiovascular workplace program without CAD-PRS and no-workplace prevention program.MethodsWe developed a cohort simulation model to project health benefits (quality-adjusted life years gained) and costs over a period of 5 years in a cohort of employees with a mean age of 50 years. The model health states reflected the risk of disease (coronary artery disease and ischemic stroke) and statin prevention therapy side effects (diabetes, hemorrhagic stroke, and myopathy). We considered medical and lost productivity costs. Data were obtained from the literature, and the analysis was performed from a self-insured employer perspective with future costs and quality-adjusted life years discounted at 3% annually. Uncertainty in model parameter inputs was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Three programs were compared: (1) a workplace cardiovascular program that integrated CAD-PRS with the pooled cohort equation—a standard of care for assessing the risk of cardiovascular diseases (CardioriskSCORE); (2) a workplace cardiovascular prevention program without CAD-PRS (Standard-WHP); and (3) no-workplace health program (No-WHP). The main outcomes were total costs (US $2019), incremental costs, incremental quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.ResultsCardioriskSCORE lowered employer costs ($53 and $575) and improved employee quality-adjusted life years (0.001 and 0.005) per employee screened compared to Standard-WHP and No-WHP, respectively. The effectiveness of statin prevention therapy, employees' baseline cardiovascular risk, the proportion of employees that enrolled in the program, and statin adherence had the largest effect size on the incremental net monetary benefit. However, despite the variation in parameter input values, base case results remained robust.ConclusionPolygenic testing in a workplace cardiovascular prevention program improves employees' quality of life and simultaneously lowers health costs and productivity monetary loss for employers.