Aims: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of the current screening programme on Familial Hypercholesterolaemia (FH) in relatives of diagnosed FH-patients in The Netherlands. Methods and Results: Data from 2229 screened FH-relatives, including age, sex, risk factor status and screening outcome, were combined with the Framingham risk function and national disease-specific cost data to arrive at a model-based comparison of survival and costs, with and without the screening programme. Cost-effectiveness ratios were computed for various treatment strategies, with no screening as reference. Costs per life year gained varied between 25·5- and 32-thousand Euros, depending upon the precise treatment strategy after a positive screen. The costs for screening (tracing the FH-positive individuals) were much lower than the follow-up costs (treatment), of which 80% were costs for statins. Consequently, the costs per life year gained of alternative screening programmes are about the same. Conclusion: The cost-effectiveness ratio of FH screening is within the range requiring explicit political consideration in The Netherlands. As the costs of statin treatment are the single most important determinant of costs, policy decisions reduce to decisions on the acceptability of statin treatment for this risk group. Pending major changes in statin price, clear guidelines should be developed on how screen positive individuals should be treated, since not all of them have an elevated cholesterol level.@en

Study objective - To estimate the prevalence of hypertension in The Netherlands and to quantify the influence of methodological variables on the reported prevalences. Design - A pooled analysis was performed based on reported age specific prevalences of hypertension. A logistic model was used to estimate the probability of hypertension. Main results - The age standardised prevalence of hypertension varies more than fivefold between studies carried out in The Netherlands. The probability of having hypertension was lower if blood pressure was measured at more than one point in time (Odds ratio 0.44 (OR) (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.38, 0.51) for men and 0.47 (0.41, 0.54) for women, and if the study was carried out more recently (OR 0.92 (0.91, 0.93) per year). The probability was higher if the study was carried out in a general practice (OR 1.14 (1.03, 1.27) for men and 1.52 (1.36, 1.69) for women). The inclusion of treated people as hypertensive yields contradictory results for men and women. Conclusions - The strong variation in prevalence is explained by methodology and by a period effect indicating a decrease of the prevalence of hypertension over time. Whether this decrease is true or caused by confounding due to unknown or unreported methodological variation over time is unknown. For future studies, a standardised method could reduce the influence of methodological variables and thereby the variation in reported prevalences.@en